April 15, 2010
21.4.980
Background
The employee grieved the department's refusal to reimburse travel expenses from May to November 2005. The grievor maintained that the employer should cover the costs associated with this deployment as would be the case under a secondment agreement.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor's deployment was not "voluntary". The grievor was forced to request a deployment to another location because of an apparent conflict of interest situation engendered by functions as city councillor in another municipality. This resulted in additional travel expenses unjustly imposed on the grievor.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the employee who was temporarily assigned from the other location to replace the grievor was paid travel expenses from May until November 2005. The employee was later deployed to the other location upon the grievor's re-election in November 2005. The grievor is entitled to the same benefits because the grievor's deployment was in fact only temporary; it was agreed by the Employer and the grievor that were the grievor not re-elected in November 2005 the grievor would be redeployed into his substantive position.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative submitted that once the grievor was deployed, the new location office became the permanent workplace. The grievor is therefore not entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses under the NJC Travel Directive; it is the responsibility of the employee to report to the location where the the employee ordinarily performs the work of his or her position or reports to.
The Departmental representative submitted that to put an end to a situation of apparent conflict of interest, three options were presented to the grievor. The grievor accepted a deployment to the other office in order to continue in the grievor's functions as city councilor for the amalgamated municipality.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee. The Executive agreed that the employee had not been treated within the intent of the Travel Directive (effective October 1, 2002) for the period of May 2 to May 29, 2005. It was agreed that the employee would no longer be deemed to be in travel status once his deployment to a new position in the other workplace became effective on May 30, 2005. As such the grievance was upheld in part.