August 25, 2010
21.4.993
Background
The employee grieved the department's refusal to reimburse the travel expenses related to the use of his personal motor vehicle (PMV) while on training in another city.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor requested to take his/her PMV to visit family in the evenings once the training was completed. This would not have been possible using a government fleet vehicle since the use of fleet vehicles is limited to travel between the workplace and the travel duty location.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor made repeated attempts to consult with management as to the mode of transportation and that the grievor was open to all types of arrangements that would accommodate visits to family.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that management also never responded to the grievor's request regarding the possibility of using a fleet vehicle for personal trips outside training hours.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that in the absence of a proper consultation with management, the grievor nonetheless complied with the employer's instruction and reserved a fleet vehicle for the travel. However, when the grievor arrived at the pick up location, the specific vehicle the grievor had reserved, to avoid back pain, was not available. There were no managers on site at the time (i.e. weekend and evening) and the grievor did not attempt to contact management at home because the grievor believed that the cost to the employer in doing so would be much greater than if the grievor simply continued with his/her PMV.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that it is important to note that the grievor did not intend to take his/her PMV contrary to management's instruction however, the vehicle the grievor had reserved was not available and he/she did not want to compromise his/her back given the physical demands of the training the grievor would be partaking in. The grievor took the initiative and made a professional decision to take his/her PMV.
Furthermore, the Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the Agency's Designated Departmental Travel Coordinator (DDTC) had informed the grievor that management can suggest that an employee take a fleet vehicle but that it cannot force an employee to take it if that employee prefers to take his PMV.
The Bargaining Agent representative also submitted that management did not respect the Directive's Principles. Finally, the Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor did everything in his/her power to bring about a transparent consultation with management. The grievor asked management for flexibility and showed flexibility by being open to options other than taking his/her PMV. Management refused the use of the grievor's PMV simply because the Agency's policy was to use fleet vehicles; management did not consider any of the reasons listed in the Directive, specifically, cost, duration, convenience, safety and practicality.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative referred the Committee to paragraph 1.1.1 of the NJC Travel Directive which stipulates that it is the employer's responsibility to "authorize and determine when government travel is necessary, and to ensure that all travel arrangements are consistent with the provisions of this directive." Also, paragraph 3.3.11 of the Directive states that the selection of the mode of transportation is based on cost, duration, convenience, safety and practicality.
The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor's reasons for wanting to take his/her PMV are essentially personal, such as wanting to visit family outside training hours, and have nothing to do with the purpose behind the travel.
The Departmental representative submitted that according to management, to authorize the grievor to use his/her PMV would result in additional travel expenses to the employer for reasons completely unrelated to the purpose for the travel. Consequently, if the employer were to comply with the grievor's request, it would in effect be saying that it considers the grievor's personal convenience of greater importance than the issue of cost. In the current budgetary context and in the context of the organization of which the costs allocated for travel expenses are significant, management must consider cost. Management's decision to request that the grievor use a fleet vehicle was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
The Departmental representative submitted that to later justify the use of his/her PMV without prior authorization, the grievor alleged that the government fleet vehicle available was not the vehicle the grievor had specifically requested in advance of the travel and that it was not suitable for the grievor's back condition. The employer cannot accept this because on the one hand, the grievor needed a vehicle in order to participate in use of force learning retention training. This type of training requires significant physical efforts and an employee with a serious back condition would not have been able to participate. On the other hand, paragraph 1.5.2 of the Directive states that a traveller must inform the employer or its suppliers of his/her needs that may require accommodation. The grievor never informed management, prior to travel, of specific needs related to the travel. If the grievor had informed management in advance that he/she required a specific fleet vehicle, management would have taken the necessary steps to assent to the grievor's request. The employer cannot be held responsible for not accommodating the grievor since the grievor did not raise the issue in advance.
The Departmental representative submitted that despite management's instructions to the grievor to use fleet vehicle and that no kilometrage would be reimbursed if the grievor used his/her PMV, the grievor nevertheless chose to use his/her PMV, without prior authorization. Consequently, the employer is under no obligation to reimburse the grievor for the expenses incurred as a result of the grievor initiative and decision to use his/her PMV.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee noted that the Government Travel Committee had reached an impasse on the above noted grievance. The Executive Committee considered the circumstances in this case and agreed that the employee had been treated within the intent of the Travel directive.
The employee was authorized by his management to use a government fleet vehicle for the authorized training while on official government business. The grievor failed to notify management that there was an issue concerning the fleet vehicle at the time of departure. The grievor's medical issue was not raised during the approval process prior to travel and did not seek a revised approval to use his personal vehicle before departing. As such the grievance was denied.