September 10, 2009
21.4.973
Background
The employees grieved management's decision to deny commuting assistance to their new worksite.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The bargaining agent representative submitted that the employer, by reassigning the grievors workplace for budgetary reasons, shifted the costs to the grievors and that this is an unfair and unreasonable burden to be borne by the grievors.
The bargaining agent representative submitted that there is no adequate public transportation operating between the new worksite and the employer's alleged "suitable residential community," as per paragraph 1.1.1 (b) of the Commuting Assistance Directive (the Directive). There is no daily bus to commute to the worksite.
The bargaining agent representative further submitted that there is no suitable residential community located within a direct road distance of 16 kms from the worksite. The distance of 12 kms referenced by the employer is misleading; it was measured from the boundary of the two communities. The reality is that the worksite is approximately 18 kms away, which is outside the 16 kms as prescribed by the Directive. The bargaining agent representative referred to the PSSRB Baker et al. decision where the adjudicator determined that "in order to meet the criteria set out in the definition of suitable residence, the community must be within and not merely bordering on a 16 km radius of the worksite. The geographic centre of the community must be within the 16 km radius."
The bargaining agent representative further submitted that consultation with the union regarding the designation of a suitable residential community as required by the Directive did not happen. The employer ignored the union's request to consult on the issue. The employer's refusal to consult is in clear violation of the Directive.
The bargaining agent representative submitted that the grievors had very little freedom of choice in terms of living close to work as there was no suitable residential community within 16 kms from their worksite. The employees must maintain their residence and thus, become subject to higher transportation costs than would otherwise have been the case. The grievors are clearly eligible for commuting assistance. The Purpose and Scope of the Directive explains that "commuting assistance is to help defray costs incurred in employee's daily travel to and from work when they do not have the convenience of living close to work as there is no suitable residential community reasonably close to the worksite."
Departmental Presentation
The departmental representative submitted that the grievors did not receive commuting assistance while working at their workplace prior to reassignment to another location. The community in question has residential availability, tourism, and entertainment activities, restaurants, a hospital and a volunteer fire department. It is located approximately 22 kms from the grievors' residence.
The departmental representative submitted that the distance between the grievor's residence and workplace is approximately 64 kms. The distance between the workplace and the other residential community is 12 kms. That residential community's population is almost 4 times that of the other community and has ample residential availability, tourism and entertainment activities, a local newspaper, restaurants, a hospital, four fire halls and other amenities.
The departmental representative contended that if one of the communities constituted a suitable residential community then the other should also constitute a suitable residential community as it meets the criteria outlined in the definition of suitable residential community and section 1.1.1 of the Directive. As such, the departmental representative maintained that the employer is not permitted to authorize commuting assistance.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee and agreed that the employees had not been treated within the intent of the 1994 and 2005 Commuting Assistance Directives. As such, the grievance was upheld.
The Executive Committee is requesting that the department report back to the Executive Committee within the next 3 months on the implemented corrective action.