June 17, 2009
21.4.950
Background
The employee requested reimbursement for child care expenses incurred while on travel status from 1996 to 2003.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that in 1989 the grievor was employed by the Canadian Pari-Mutual Agency (CPMA) on a part-time basis. His headquarters area was Orangeville. In 1992, the grievor was informed by his employer that there would no longer be any work available for him on a regular part-time basis. The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor was nonetheless told by his employer that he would be "kept on the books" for possible ad hoc work. The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor was never removed from the employer's system and that he was identified as an employee on leave without pay. In 1996, the grievor was offered a full-time position with the Agency. At the time, the grievor was working as an Associate Judge with the Ontario Racing Commission. The grievor was told that he would be required to report to Toronto and that he would be receiving travel and relocation assistance. On this basis, the grievor accepted to return to work for the Agency. The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor did not sign a letter of offer upon his return to work for the Agency in 1996.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that given that the grievor was never provided with a letter of offer of employment or with a new/revised assigned workplace the grievor considered that his headquarters area continued to be Orangeville. The grievor resides in Ingersoll which is 150 kilometers from Toronto. The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that in October 1996, the grievor submitted a travel expense claim for travel mileage from his home (Ingersoll) to various reporting locations including travel to Toronto. The grievor's manager denied his claim for dates on which the grievor was requesting travel mileage from his home to report to Toronto. The manager informed the grievor that because he was based in Toronto, his travel would be reimbursed from that location.
In June 1997 the grievor was advised by his manager that he was not entitled to relocation expenses. The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that one of the grievor's colleagues had explained how to complete an expense claim at the beginning of his employment, but he was never provided with copies of or given access to the Travel or Integrated Relocation directives, therefore he was not aware of his entitlements.
In August 1997, the grievor was reclassified effective September 1, 1996. The letter did not specify the grievor's headquarters area. In March 2001, the grievor was advised in writing that his assigned workplace was Toronto.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that in September 2002, the employer and the grievor signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) in order to settle 7 grievances filed by the grievor. The employer agreed to reimburse the grievor for the following expenses: travel from April 1, 2002 and relocation according to the Relocation directive; child care expenses in accordance with the Treasury Board directives; a lump sum of $5,000 and appointment to full-time status as of September 9, 2002.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that in March 2004, the grievor provided the employer with invoices to support his claim for child care expenses while in travel status in accordance with the MoA. The grievor explained that the delay in providing these invoices was due to the fact that the employer did not provide him with the documentation, that he had requested, in a timely fashion.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that in September 2006, the employer partially allowed the grievance in that the grievor would receive reimbursement providing he furnish the employer with child care receipts by October 16, 2006 for the period of 1996-2002.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor believed that his headquarters area was Orangeville since he never received any written documentation to the contrary until 2001. As stated by the Bargaining Agent "under section 1.1. Authorization of the Relocation Directive, the grievor could not incur any expenses related to a specific relocation before having received written authorization to relocate. The written authorization to relocate was only given to the grievor in September 2002. The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor is therefore entitled to reimbursement of child care expenses under the Travel Directive from 1996 to September 2002 (Orangeville being the designated HQ workplace) and reimbursement from September 2002 until March 2003 for child care expenses incurred while on business travel (Toronto being the designated HQ workplace).
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative submitted that the NJC Travel Committee does not have jurisdiction to hear this grievance because the subject matter is exactly the same as was contained in grievances that were resolved through a MoA signed in 2002. In the MoA the grievor agreed to withdraw his grievances and to release the employer from any further action related to the same issues.
The Departmental representative submitted that at the time this grievance was filed in 2005, there were no travel claims submitted by the grievor that requested reimbursement of child care expenses. All travel claims submitted by the grievor from 1996 to 2005 were paid accordingly.
The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor provided documentation related to child care expenses in October 2006 in the amount of $73 485 and then re-submitted a revised claim again in December 2006 for $74 835. The documentation provided was not in accordance with the Travel Directive since it did not contain the required information, i.e. dates and amount of payments, proof (and method) of payment, hourly rate of child care, hours when child care was provided, proof that claimed expenses were in addition to child care expenses the grievor would have incurred when not travelling. The employer requested further details in June 2007. To date the grievor has yet to provide the necessary supporting documentation.
In its review of the documentation, management also noticed that the grievor claimed for periods when he was not on travel status; when he was not scheduled to work; when he was on leave and some claims exceeded the amounts allowed.
The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor did not comply with other elements of the Travel Directive. The grievor did not seek prior approval from the supervisor in order to travel and the grievor is requesting reimbursement for expenses that date back over 10 years when the directive is clear that documentation needs to be submitted as soon as possible after the travel is completed.
The Departmental representative submitted that the majority of the grievor's claims were for periods of time when he was regularly scheduled to work in Toronto, his home work location and not on travel status. The departmental representative submitted that it is not the intent of the Travel Directive to pay for employee's child care expenses on an everyday basis when employees report to work at their assigned workplace.
The grievor was hired by the Agency as a part-time, seasonal employee working out of Orangeville. The grievor's employment was terminated in 1992 as evidenced by a letter of termination dated March 27, 1992 indicating the elimination of his seasonal position. However, due to an administrative oversight, the grievor was never struck off strength in the system. The Orangeville location was closed in 1993. The departmental representative submitted that in 1996, the employer did contact the grievor to offer him work in Toronto on an as needed basis. The departmental representative submitted that the grievor was told that if he accepted the offer he would be responsible for reporting to Toronto at his own expense, that there was no guarantee of number of hours of work or length or term of employment and that whenever travel was required, he would be treated in the same manner as the other employees at the Toronto location.
The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor was fully aware that his headquarters area was Toronto. While a written offer of employment was not made, there are several other documents commencing in 1996 that indicate that the grievor's headquarters area is Toronto. Furthermore, between 1996 and 2003, the grievor filed numerous travel claims requiring mileage from Toronto to other work locations but he never requested mileage between Toronto and his home. Mileage was paid to the grievor from Toronto to other locations and back. The departmental representative submitted that for all of the above reasons the grievor is not entitled to reimbursement of child care expenses.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee. The Executive Committee agreed that the employee was treated within the intent of the Government Travel Directive. The Committee also agreed that the grievor was provided ample opportunities to supply receipts and proof of payments as required in accordance with the Travel Directive. The requirement for additional documentation and receipts were requested in June 1997. As such, the grievance is denied.