October 9, 2009
21.4.977
Background
The employees grieved the department's refusal to pay for lunch on the event day during the National Public Service week.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The bargaining agent representative submitted that the grievors were authorized under section 1.1.1 of the NJC Travel Directive to travel on government business. When management authorized the grievors to participate in the event, it in fact authorized the grievors' travel under the provisions of the NJC Travel Directive for the purposes of training.
In support of its affirmation that the grievors were travelling for training purposes, the bargaining agent referred the Committee to the event poster which describes the event as comprising two guest speakers and a networking lunch. Given that the event is work related, and that the lecture topics are training exercises related to work, the purpose of the event falls easily within the application of the NJC Travel Directive.
The bargaining agent representative submitted that the only condition that entitled an employee to the meal was his/her registration. According to correspondence regarding the event, transportation and a meal were to be provided by the employer to all registered employees. After the registration deadline however, a memorandum addressed to the afternoon participants, indicated that a meal would not be provided. There was clearly a differential treatment between the morning and the afternoon registrants and in clear contradiction of the original stipulations. In light of the above, the bargaining agent representative put forward that it was entirely reasonable for the grievors to expect that the employer would provide them with a meal.
The bargaining agent representative submitted that the employer purported to change the grievors' work schedule to allow then to take their lunch before leaving for the event. In accordance with the collective agreement, seven (7) days advance notice is required.
Finally, the bargaining agent representative maintained that if the employer did not want the grievors to participate in the event, it had the right to refuse to authorize their participation. The employer however, chose to authorize the grievors to participate in a conference related to work and the provisions of the NJC Travel Directive are therefore applicable. The employer arbitrarily chose to circumvent the principles and provisions of the NJC Travel Directive, without consultation with the grievors, after the grievors had already registered and authorization had been given.
Departmental Presentation
The departmental representative maintained that the NJC Travel Directive does not apply in this case because the grievors were not in travel status. In support of her position, the departmental representative put forward the following line of reasoning – the event was not principally for work purposes; the grievor did not submit an advance authorization; and participation in the event was voluntary.
The departmental representative submitted that the French version of the NJC Travel Directive in effect at the time defines government travel as "a business trip" authorized by the employer. She referred the Committee to the government of Canada's terminology and linguistic data bank, Terminum Plus which in turn defines a "business trip" as "a trip paid by a company, principally for work purposes".
First and foremost, the departmental representative maintained that the event was not principally for work purposes but rather a recreational activity. The event was organized by the National Public Service Week Committee and not by the department. The goal of the event was in pursuance of the National Public Service Week Act preamble. The employees were invited to participate in a voluntary recreational activity to promote networking with colleagues in other departments and to attend a presentation. The fact that the grievors were not provided with a meal during the event does not automatically entitle them to the provisions of the NJC Travel Directive. Incidentally, employees were provided with sufficient time prior to their departure for the event to take a meal-break.
The departmental representative submitted that the grievors were not in travel status as they never submitted a prior authorization in accordance with section 1.1.2 of the NJC Travel Directive, nor was it expected that they should have done so because management had advised them throughout that neither meals, nor kilometric rate would be reimbursed. Management made it clear from the start that the NJC Travel Directive would not be applied. It was not until after the event that the grievors submitted a claim for payment of meal expenses. The departmental representative highlighted an inconsistency in the grievors' actions, although they claim to have been on travel status under the NJC Travel Directive, they did not claim reimbursement of kilometric rate for use of their personal motor vehicles.
Finally, the representative submitted that participation in the event was "voluntary". The first twenty-five (25) employees randomly selected to participate in the event which included the meal, were not on travel status. They were provided with a meal because the meal formed an integral part of the event. The departmental representative acknowledged that the invitation to the event was addressed to all employees, offering each and every employee the opportunity to participate in a recreational activity and to partake in a meal. Participation to the event however, was voluntary and was subject to limited enrolment. Although management was able to obtain additional spots for employees to attend the afternoon presentation, the employees who benefited from those spots were explicitly told that they would not be able to partake in the meal. The grievors nonetheless chose to participate. This participation was voluntary and the grievors were not in travel status.
The departmental representative submitted that management acted in good faith when they invited employees to participate in the event. Management never omitted to register the grievors to the event, no more than it required the grievors to disburse for a meal. The grievors benefitted from the additional spots which the employer had been able to secure but for which a meal could unfortunately not be offered. Management provided transportation and offered the grievors the opportunity to eat lunch before leaving the workplace for the event. The choice not to eat lunch before leaving was entirely the grievors'. Although it is unfortunate that the grievors could not partake in the meal, management had no control in the planning of the event. Management provided the grievors with clear instructions at all times.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the employees had been treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. The employees were not on travel status over the lunch period since the employer had rescheduled the grievors' lunch break. As such, the grievance was denied.