August 25, 2010
21.4.981
Background
The employee maintained that the employer had violated the NJC Travel Directive and was in travel status since his/her deployment in 1995. The grievor did not receive official and written notice of the workplace change until September 2005. The employee is requesting reimbursement of the kilometric rate for the use of his/her private vehicle as well as all meal allowances retroactive to the date of his/her deployment in 1995.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor was deployed in a new substantive position in Location A on June 30, 1995 as a consequence of the abolition of his/her position in Location B.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated the despite the fact that the grievor's substantive position was now in Location C, the grievor, for operational reasons, continued to report directly to Location B.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that at the employer's request, the grievor reported to Location C in July 1998. In August 1998 the grievor returned to Location B for operational reasons.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor received notification in 1997 that the grievor's substantive position was in Location C so even though the grievor reported to Location B until his/her retirement in 2009, the grievor's substantive position was always in Location C.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that management's September 12, 2005 letter confirming the grievor's workplace as Location B was incorrect and conflicting, since the grievor's substantive position was in Location C.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the confusion surrounding the grievor's substantive position and workplace led, in August 2005, to a discussion between the grievor, management, and human resources. It was during that time that the grievor learned of the existence of the NJC Travel Directive which confirmed, in the grievor's opinion, his/her entitlement to travel expenses between the location of the grievor's substantive position in Location C and the grievor's workplace in Location B.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated it was not until June 27, 2007 that the grievor finally did receive proper confirmation that the location of the grievor's substantive position was now Location B.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that Location C mismanaged the grievor's expenses, incurred for travel between the location of the grievor's substantive position in Location C and his/her workplace in Location B, for operational reasons.
Departmental Presentation
The Employer representative indicated that the grievor's deployment to Location A in 1995 did not take effect since management ascertained that there was enough work to keep the grievor in Location B. Consequently, the grievor continued to report directly to Location B.
The Employer representative indicated that on February 19, 1997 the grievor was notified that as of April 1, 1997 the grievor's new workplace would be Location C. In reality, the grievor worked in Location C for one week before taking two weeks annual leave. Upon his/her return, the grievor received official verbal notification to return to Location B on a permanent basis. During the grievor's absence, management had ascertained that an employee was needed on a permanent basis in Location B to respond to operational requirements.
The Employer representative indicated that the Department did not contravene the NJC Travel Directive by verbally informing the grievor of the workplace change.
The Employer representative indicated that the grievor discovered in 2005 that a colleague was being reimbursed expenses for travel from Location C to Location B. Consequently, the grievor filed a complaint asking for similar treatment. The complaint was rejected. The grievor asked to be provided with written confirmation of the change in his/her workplace from Location C to Location B since 1997. Such a letter was sent to the grievor in September 2005.
The Employer representative indicated that the grievor believes he/she was in travel status from 1995 to 2005 because the grievor did not receive written notice of the workplace change until 2005.
The Employer representative indicated that the grievor took two different routes to get to work between 1995 and 2005. The first was from the grievor's residence in Location B to the Location C garrison from 1995 to 2005 (with the exception of one week in 1997). The second was from the grievor's residence in Location B to the Location C garrison for a one week period in 1997.
The Employer representative indicated that the grievor never travelled outside headquarters area; the grievor was simply reporting to his/her permanent workplace, to and from his/her residence. Furthermore, the grievor was not required to, nor did he/she travel between garrisons during the workday.
The employer representative indicated that the NJC Travel Directive in effect at the time defines workplace as the "location where a grievor normally performs the duties of his position". In the grievor's case, this was Location B and Location C (for one week in 1997).
The employer representative maintained that the grievor was not on travel status when reporting to work and this is the reason why the grievor was never authorized to travel and why the grievor never submitted any travel expense claims.
The employer representative reiterated that the purpose of the NJC Travel Directive is to provide for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses necessarily incurred while travelling on government business and to ensure employees are not out of pocket. The grievor never incurred any such expenses and as such is not entitled to any reimbursements under the guise of the NJC Travel Directive.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent the NJC Travel Directive. The Committee agreed that the grievor's permanent workplace and the location of his substantive position was Location B with the exception of a three (3) week period at the beginning of April 1997 when the grievor reported directly to Location C.
It was agreed that the grievor was entitled to the reimbursement of travel expenses incurred if and when the grievor was required to travel from Location B to Location C to perform the duties of his position.
As such, the Committee agreed to uphold the grievance and that the corrective action would be limited to 25 days prior to the grievance presentation on October 11, 2005.