February 17, 2010
21.4.982
Background
The employee grieved the department's refusal to reimburse travel expenses retroactively from April 4, 2005 until the end of the employee's Memorandum of Understanding and temporary assignment.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the Department's interpretation of section 2.11.1 of the Relocation Directive, which is the basis for the Department denial of the grievance at the first level, is incorrect. Section 2.11.1 refers specifically and directly to a relocating employee and not his/her spouse.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the phrase "it does not apply to those persons whose travel is governed by other authorities." in the Application section of the Travel Directive is not conclusive. "Other authorities" is not defined in the Directive.
The Bargaining Agent representative argued that that in relying on the phrase "other authorities" to exclude the grievor from fair compensation under the Travel Directive, that the Department interpreted the Directive in a discriminatory manner.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the NJC Travel Directive was misinterpreted by the regional office at the time but that once the Department became aware of its error it compensated its employees as per the Directive with the exception of employees with relocating spouses from the Department. The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the Department's reasoning behind its refusal to pay travel benefits to the grievor, i.e. an employee with a relocating spouse from the same Department, is without basis in the Travel Directive.
The Bargaining Agent representative believes strongly that the Department relied on the phrase "other authorities" without really grasping its significance. Attention was called to sections 1.4.5, 1.4.6 and 2.1.1 of the NJC Integrated Relocation Directive to illustrate that the "travel" of a person in the grievor's situation was not contemplated and is not governed by the Relocation Directive.
Furthermore, it was submitted that the grievor did not receive any compensation for travel expenses to the grievor's temporary workplace.
The Bargaining Agent representative asked that the Committee uphold the grievance and put a stop to the discriminatory practice caused by the Department's erroneous interpretation of the Travel Directive.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor is not entitled to the reimbursement of travel expenses under the NJC Travel Directive, as the spouse of a relocating employee, the grievor benefited from the provisions of the NJC Integrated Relocation Directive. The Application section of the Travel Directive clearly states that "it does not apply to those persons whose travel is governed by other authorities".
Several reimbursements under the Relocation Directive were personally paid out to the grievor.
The Departmental representative submitted that the Employer believes that an employee cannot benefit from two directives at once.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee noted that the Government Travel Committee had reached an impasse on the above grievance. The Executive Committee agreed that the employee was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. It was agreed that the employee was not on travel status during the period of the temporary assignments which were staffing actions for a period of time in order to accommodate the employee's request to work in the same location as the relocated spouse. As such, the grievance was denied.