October 27, 2010
21.4.1004
Background
The employee grieved the department's request for repayment of travel expenses for the period of February 20 to 29, 2008 and refusal to reimburse travel expenses for the period March 1 to 31, 2008.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that in December 2007 the grievor requested and was granted a relocation of spouse priority. This priority was valid for the period of December 10, 2007 to December 9, 2008 and guaranteed that the grievor's substantive position would not be filled on an indeterminate basis until the grievor had been absent for more than one year.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that on February 14, 2008, the grievor was contacted by a manager in the relocated area "City B" to offer the grievor an assignment to replace an employee who was off on sick leave. The manager made a verbal offer of employment without providing the grievor with specific details of the assignment. The grievor accepted the verbal offer of temporary employment and reported to work on February 20, 2008.
It was submitted that on February 20, 2008, the grievor's Bargaining Agent representative contacted the employer to inquire about the grievor's pay, length of term, and travel arrangements, and that on February 29, 2008, the grievor was told by the supervisor to complete both overtime and travel expense claims travel from home to the workplace. The grievor submitted the travel claim for the period of February 20, 2008 to February 29, 2008 and the grievor's supervisor authorized the claim and payment was issued.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that in March 2008 the grievor advised the manager that the grievor's supervisor had authorized the claim for travel expenses. The grievor indicated that she believed she was entitled because she was in travel status as her substantive position was in City A. The Human Resouorces (HR) manager informed the grievor that this was contrary to information he/she was receiving from HR.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that on March 16, 2008, the grievor received the employer's letter of offer dated March 5 for the period of February 20 to March 31, 2008. On March 31, 2008, the grievor submitted a second travail claim for the period which was also approved by the grievor's supervisor.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that on April 24, 2008, the department advised the grievor that there was no entitlement to travel expenses and that the amount paid had to be recovered.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor was entitled to payment of travel expenses. The grievor's permanent workplace remained in City A until such time as the grievor accepted another indeterminate position or until the grievor's spousal leave expired, whichever came earlier. The grievor could have retuned to the substantive position before the expiry of the leave. In fact, the grievor did just that when the employer revoked the grievor's leave in July 2008. The grievor replaced the spousal relocation leave with leave without pay for personal reasons and returned to the substantive position.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that when the employer contacted the grievor on February 14, 2008 to offer the grievor a term assignment in City B, the permanent workplace was City A. The grievor was provided with little detail regarding the assignment and the grievor accepted in good faith, the verbal offer of temporary employment.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that although the effective date of the appointment was February 20, 2008 the grievor was only notified in writing on March 16, 2008 that the grievor was being offered a term of less than three months.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that it is clear from the employer's correspondence dated December 7, 2007 and March 5, 2008, that the grievor's permanent workplace was City A and that employment in City B was of a temporary nature.
The grievor's supervisor recognized that the grievor was in travel status based on the fact that the substantive position remained in City A and the City B workplace was a temporary one. This is why the employer instructed the grievor to submit a travel expense claim and authorized payment.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor had been working out of the City A office for years and that the fact that the grievor went on spousal relocation leave in December 2008 did not result in a change in the grievor's permanent workplace. The substantive position remained in City A and it was protected for a year.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the Government Travel Committee should be guided by the NJC decisions in 21.4.903 and 21.4.930.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative submitted that on February 20, 2002 the grievor was appointed to a term position in City B as a result of priority status in a staffing process. The grievor was not assigned to this position.
The Departmental representative agreed that employees are entitled to provisions under the Travel Directive when they are assigned from a permanent workplace to a temporary workplace. In this case however, when the grievor accepted the term position in City B the grievor accepted an entirely new position following a staffing process, thereby making City B the grievor's permanent workplace.
The Departmental representative submitted that under the Travel Directive an employee is not in travel status when reporting to his/her permanent workplace.
The Departmental representative submitted that although the grievor did not receive a letter of offer until March 16, 2008, the grievor accepted a verbal offer of employment. The letter of offer received after the grievor had already been appointed does not replace the existing verbal contract.
The Departmental representative disputes the Bargaining Agent representative's evidence that the grievor's supervisor advised the grievor that he/she was entitled to provisions under the Travel Directive. According to the Departmental representative, the grievor's supervisor denies that the matter was ever discussed with the grievor.
The Departmental representative submitted the authorization to travel is granted to an employee once a Travel Authorization Request if approved by management. The grievor did not consult with management nor did the grievor complete the required Travel Authorization Request, prior to submitting the travel expenses as required by paragraph 1.5.2(b) of the Travel Directive. As such, the grievor did not have permission to travel during the periods in question.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee and noted the Committee's impasse.
The Executive Committee considered the information and circumstance in this grievance and agreed that the employee was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. The grievor was on leave from her indeterminate position for the purposes of relocating with her spouse. It was agreed that the employee was not on travel status during the period of the term employment 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.