Travel Expenses

Background

The employees grieved the denial of travel expenses for the period October 1, 2002 to January 31, 2003.

Bargaining Agent Presentation

The Bargaining Agent representative reported that Grievor 1 was appointed indeterminately to a position on March 3, 2003 and that Grievor 2 was appointed indeterminately to a position in the spring of 2003.

She reported that on April 15 and 16, 2003, management responded to the grievors' travel claims and informed them that it was a headquarters decision that all travel arrangements in place prior to the new Travel Directive were not subject to the new Travel Directive.  On April 17, 2003, the grievors filed a grievance contesting management's decision.

The representative mentioned that throughout the process, management maintained that the grievors were not subject to the new NJC Directive because their acting assignments had commenced prior to the date of implementation of the New Directive.

She noted that the NJC Directive is part of the grievors' collective agreements and as such, any and all amendments to the NJC Directive are applicable to all employees the day the Directive came into effect; e.g., October 1, 2002.

She also noted that there were no transition measures included in the Travel Directive applicable to the grievors.

The representative mentioned that the manager stated in its second level response that the grievors were covered by the Communiqué of September 25, 2002 re. Short-Term Relocation.  She submitted that the grievors were not on Short-Term Relocation as per the old NJC Travel Directive for several reasons:

The grievors did not relocate or live in another community, as stipulated in subsection 5.9 of the Relocation Directive;

They remained at their respective residence and commuted on a daily basis;

The grievors do not meet the definition of relocation under the Relocation Directive;

The NJC Travel Administrative Guide speaks in detail about the application of Short-Term Relocation.  It specifically states:  "whenever it is known in advance that the employee will be in a given location for four months or more but less than 3 years, the employee must be placed on short-term relocation status from the beginning";

According to the Guide itself, the grievors would simply not qualify as they had been assigned to the new work location on September 9, 2002 as per the employer's letter;

The period of the acting assignment was less than four months; e.g., 2 months or less.

Furthermore, she specified that the Short-Term Relocation Communiqué clearly stated that for periods of assignment of less than four months duration, the provisions of the new Travel Directive applied.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that although a staffing action was underway, nothing guaranteed that the grievors would obtain a permanent position at the new location. She further noted that the acting assignments could have ended at any time, that the assignments were for very specific time and that someone else could have been appointed at any time.

The Bargaining Agent representative referred to subsection 1.9 - Workplace Change of the new Travel Directive, and more specifically referred to subsection 1.9.2, which provides the following:

"When an employee is assigned from a permanent workplace to a temporary workplace, for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or more, the provisions of this directive shall apply unless the employee is notified, in writing, 30 calendar days in advance of the change in workplace. In situations where the employee is not notified of a change of workplace in writing, the provisions of the directive shall apply for the duration of the workplace change up to a maximum of 60 calendar days".

She submitted that management did not provide the required advance notification in writing of the change in workplace.  As such, she believed that the grievors were eligible to reimbursement of their travel expenses to report to the new work location from their home, as well as, the reimbursement of associated meals.

In addition, she reported that both the Executive Committee and the Government Travel Committee in a recent decision dated September 21, 2005, recognized that any extensions to existing assignments after September 20, 2002 are to be treated as new assignments and are subject to the Travel Directive effective October 1, 2002.  She reported that the intent of the Communiqué was not to perpetuate extensions of assignments indefinitely under provisions of Directives that have expired.

Departmental Representative Presentation

The Departmental representative reported that the employees were advised that the change in workplace was in effect until further notice, and submitted there was no break in the assignment as in fact, they were subsequently retroactively appointed to the acting positions.

She further reported that as the grievors' travel situation commenced under the previous Travel Directive, their assignment was treated under the provisions of the April 1993 Travel Directive until the end of their acting assignment.  She mentioned that this was in keeping with the instructions received from Treasury Board and the Financial Unit, and reflected in the NJC Communiqué concerning Short Term Relocation issued on September 25, 2002.

She noted that the Communiqué indicated that, for employees subject to the Relocation Directive, the previous directive applied until the end of the assignment.  She stated that the intent of both the Travel and Relocation Directives was that an employee's entitlements would flow from the Directive that was in force at the commencement of the assignment, and only be amended once the assignment was extended by management.  She explained that this would allow management to review with the employee the relevant travel and operational issues and ensure that the travel was authorized in accordance with the principles of the new Travel Directive in effect on October 1, 2002.  She submitted that in the case of the grievors, unlike for the grievance reviewed by the Committee in September 2005, the assignment was continuous until they were appointed to the assignment position indeterminately in March 2003.

Executive Committee Decision

The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee.  The Committee agreed that grievor 1 was not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive for the period from November 2, 2002 to January 31, 2003.  As such, the grievance was upheld to extent described.

The Committee agreed that grievor 2 was not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive for the period of October 1 to October 31, 2002.  The grievor should be considered on travel status during this period and entitled to the reimbursement of the kilometric rate as per subsection 7.3.1 of the old Travel Directive, though the grievor was not entitled to the meal allowance.  It was determined that the grievor's workplace and point of call was the lesser distance, accordingly the reimbursement of kilometric rate would be limited to 14 km each way for the above-mentioned period.  The grievance was upheld to the extent described.