December 16, 2009
27.4.83
Background
The employees grieved the designation of the nearest airport for purposes of the Fixed Rate Vacation Travel Assistance.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The bargaining agent representative submitted that the grievors were not treated within the intent of section 3.5.7 of the Isolated Posts and Government Housing (IPGH) Directive. In April 2008, updated Vacation Travel Assistance (VTA) rates were published by the Treasury Board of Canada in accordance with section 3.5.7 of the IPGH Directive. City A was allocated $1,344.00 per person and City B's rate was $1,240.00 for an adult and $930.00 for a child.
On May 27, 2008, employees in the Department were notified that effective May 13, 2008, a modification to the VTA rates had occurred as a result of a number of errors. The revised rates for City A were $620.00 for an adult and $465 for a child as the Fixed VTA rates were calculated based on the nearest airport which had been re-designated from City C to City D. The revised rate for City B was also adjusted to $620.00 for an adult and $465.00 for a child; however the nearest airport remained the same – City D.
The bargaining agent representative submitted that the City D airport should not be considered a suitable airport and as such, employees living in City B and City A should be provided with an allowance based on flights from the airport located in City C. The following reasons were provided for the unsuitability of the City D airport:
- the airport does not possess navigation tools which allow for flights during severe weather conditions;
- only one air carrier provides service from the airport and focuses primarily on the transport of cargo. As such a maximum of four passenger seats are available on each flight leaving City D;
- flight schedules are either early in the morning or late in the evening, and flights only run 5 days a week;
- the air carrier does fly directly to City E, however when flying to City F, lands in City G resulting in additional travel for employees to the main airport in City F;
- refreshments and washrooms are not available on board;
- the airline is not equipped to accommodate people with disabilities;
- priority seating is given to private contract holders.
In summary, the bargaining agent representative maintained that the grievors were not treated within the intent of the directive. As such, it was requested that the April 1, 2008 rates remain in effect and that City C be designated as the airport of departure for both City A and City B.
Departmental Presentation
The departmental representative submitted that the new VTA rates published were established in accordance with the new criteria set out in the August 2007 IPGH Directive for the determination of VTA. In May 2008, the department put in abeyance all requests for VTA as an error had been identified in the new rates.
Section 3.5.3 (a) of the IPGH Directives states: "Employees working at headquarters that do not have airports will be paid the fixed rate VTA equivalent to 100% return full fare economy class airfare between the nearest airport and the point of departure, AND the return lower kilometric rate for the driving distance between the headquarters and the nearest airport;"
City C had been mistakenly identified as the closest airport to City A. However, upon review, it was identified that City D Airport, which offers regular scheduled passenger flights to City E, was the closest airport to the post. As such, on May 27, 2008 employees were notified of the new rates effective May 13, 2008 and recovery of all overpayments was sought.
Finally, the departmental representative indicated that the Department acted in accordance with direction from Treasury Board Secretariat and does not have jurisdiction to modify or change the Directive. As such, the Department applied the Directive correctly.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Committee report which concluded that the employees had been treated within the intent of section 3.5.3 (a) of the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive. It was agreed that the grievors were not entitled to the rates in effect on April 1, 2008, but rather the amended rates effective May 13, 2008. As such, the grievance is denied.