February 16, 2011
21.4.988
Background
The employee grieved the department's refusal to reimburse travel expenses while on assignment in 2004.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor was moved to a new position as part of an accommodation for disability (workplace injury).
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that although the grievor reported to Location B to perform the duties of the assignment, the grievor's substantive position and headquarters area remained, throughout the period of the temporary assignments, Location A.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that while the grievor completed documentation for and received relocation assistance in the amount of $5,000 it was understood that this sum was for a "temporary" relocation due to the temporary nature of the assignment.
The Bargaining Agent representative further submitted that the grievor inquired with the Department as to the effect of accepting the funds on the reimbursement of travel claims and was told that the terms of the grievor's Memorandum of Understanding would remain unchanged.
The Bargaining Agent representative also noted that had the funds been allotted for the purpose of a permanent relocation the amount would have been substantially higher. Therefore, because of the temporary nature of the grievor's assignment, the representative submitted that the grievor is entitled to travel expenses under the NJC Travel Directive.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative submitted that as per section 2.11.1 of the NJC Relocation Directive, the employee cannot claim benefits under the Travel Directive because the grievor has already received funds under the Relocation Directive.
The Departmental representative further submitted that as per the Application section of the NJC Travel Directive, the Directive "applies to public service employees, exempt staff and other persons travelling on government business, including training. It does not apply to those persons whose travel is governed by other authorities". The representative maintained that the grievor's travel was governed by the NJC Relocation Directive and as such cannot benefit under the Travel Directive.
The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor was on assignments for a total period of six consecutive years and that such a lengthy period is contrary to the definition of a "temporary workplace" as set out in the Directive. The representative was of the opinion that Location B became the grievor's permanent workplace as a result of the duration of the assignments. It was never the intent of the Travel Directive to reimburse travel expenses to employees who are on assignment for prolonged periods of time.
The Departmental representative submitted that Memorandums of Understanding were signed in the context of the grievor's relocation and stipulated that the grievor was not entitled to any travel expenses consequent to reporting to the new headquarters area. Correspondence from the employer to the grievor on April 1, 2004 and on June 25, 2004 confirms this.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. It was agreed that the employee was not on travel status during the period of his temporary assignments. The employee was relocated and was ineligible to be reimbursed for travel expenses once the grievor received relocation assistance. As such, the grievance is denied.