Mode of Transportation

Background

The employees are indeterminate seasonal employees reporting to work at the vessel port in City B.  However, City A is considered to be their designated homeport and is approximately 330 km from the vessel port in City B.

At all material times, the first grievor resided in City C and the second grievor resided in City D.  The homeport (City A) is approximately 396 km from City C and 249 km from City D.  There is no obligation or practical requirement for crew members to live within reasonable proximity of their work location as crew only travel to work once at the beginning of the cycle and back home at the end. Crews work a shift cycle of 2 weeks on and off.  For approximately 20 years the Department was reimbursing employees transportation costs (mileage) to the vessel port in City B from the employee's residence or from the homeport in City A, whichever was the lesser amount.  On April 21, 2004, the Department amended the practice of paying transportation to the grievors' worksite, more specifically the Department discontinued paying mileage claims to the grievors for travel from the homeport in City A to the vessel port in City B and instead provided a Departmental vehicle for transportation from the homeport in City A to the vessel port in City B.

The employees grieved the department stopping the practice of paying transportation to their work site.

Bargaining Agent Presentation

The bargaining agent's representative stated that the policy of paying employees to travel to the vessel port in City B from their residence has been longstanding for approximately 20 years, and was part of the benefit to attract workers to City B.  For years employees operated under a blanket travel policy for travel to the vessel port in City B from their residence and did not have to seek authority for the travel in each instance. The bargaining agent argued that the employer made no attempt to provide travel for workers during this longstanding period.

The bargaining agent's representative suggested that both the grievors accepted employment at the vessel port in City B with the understanding that the mileage allowance would continue and that their home address would not have to change due to the cost offset provided by the mileage allowance. This allowance allowed them to report to work within their headquarters area without financial burden to themselves from their home locations.

The bargaining agent's representative submitted that as a result of the department's decision to discontinue the mileage allowance, the grievors now have to travel considerable distance from their respective residences to the homeport in City A to catch the government vehicle.

The bargaining agent's representative submitted that there was no consultation with the affected employees or their bargaining agent to discuss the negative effects of this change and that it suspects that the motivation for the change to the travel arrangement appears to be based solely on small savings incentives for the employer.

The bargaining agent's representative asked that the doctrine of estoppel be applied for all grievances since the employer made a promise through the travel compensation agreement and then reneged on this agreement after 20 years. The grievors have reasonably relied on the promise and now suffer a financial loss because the promise is broken.

The bargaining agent's representative claimed that the employer's actions have abrogated the principles of trust, flexibility, respect, valuing people, transparency, and modern relocation practices, as outlined in the Travel Directive, in as far as there was no prior consultation on the effects of eliminating the mileage practice, the original offer for relocation was not revisited to ensure that the employee did not suffer financial penalty, and the intent of the travel and relocation directive was not adhered to.

Based on the above, the bargaining agent's representative believed that the grievors were not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive and requested that these grievances be granted.

Departmental Presentation

The departmental representative stated that mileage was paid to these grievors from their residences to the vessel port in City B as the Department did not have the means to coordinate travel between the homeport in City A and the vessel port in City B.  As a result, management allowed employees to claim transportation costs (mileage) from the employee's residence or from the homeport in City A, whichever was the lesser amount. This remained in effect until an alternative arrangement could be made.

The departmental representative stated that the provision of a departmental vehicle for transportation between the homeport in City A and the vessel port in City B meets the requirements outlined in section 3.1.11 of the Travel Directive. The payment of mileage is an expense that can no longer be fiscally justified.

The departmental representative further stated it is the responsibility of every employee to get themselves to their place of work (in this instance, City A).  When no alternatives were available, management followed the Travel Directive by reimbursing employees the mileage for their travel costs.  When a more cost effective, efficient and practical option became available, management once again followed the Travel Directive in the selection of the mode of transportation.  The intent was adhered to at all times.

The departmental representative informed the Committee that employees were made aware as early as April 1996 that the Department was looking for ways to improve this situation and requested employee feedback.

The departmental representative suggested that if an employee has a personal preference as to how they get to work, there should not be the imposition on the employer to meet that preference if a cost effective alternative is available at no extra cost to the tax payer. The intent of the directive is not for personal financial gain.

The departmental representative further suggested that the issue of past practice in this instance was not an un-ending entitlement.  When the department had the means to provide a government or rental vehicle and driver to get crew members back and forth from their homeport to the vessel, the situation no longer merited the payment of mileage.  Should an individual choose not to take advantage of this option, it remains their responsibility to get themselves to their work location at their own expense.

The departmental representative stated that travel arrangements are based on what is most cost-effective and not on what puts the most money in the employee's pocket. Travel time is compensated for as per the collective agreement however as there is a government provided vehicle and the means to get to and from the vessel, mileage is no longer reimbursed.

Based on the above, the departmental representative believed that the department adhered to the intent of the Travel Directive and requested that these grievances be denied.

Executive Committee Decision

The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee and noted that the Committee had reached an impasse.

The Executive Committee agreed that the grievors were treated within the intent of the Travel Directive as per article 3.3.11.  The employees were provided with transportation from the workplace to the vessel port.  It was agreed that there is no entitlement under the Travel Directive to provide transportation from home to designated workplace.  As such, the grievances were denied.

However, the Executive Committee agreed that based on the information on the file, the department could have communicated in a more efficient manner in advance to the affected employees of the change in practice.