April 20, 2011
21.4.997, 21.4.998
Background
The employees grieved the employer's failure to reimburse travel expenses while the employees were on secondment.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievors were on travel status since they were seconded outside their headquarters area. As such, the provisions outlined in section 3.2 of the Travel Directive apply.
The Bargaining Agent representative referred to a Memorandum from the Assistant Deputy Commissioner Québec Region dated April 14, 2008 which challenged the application of the October 1, 2002 Travel Directive in cases where employees were assigned to a temporary workplace on secondment or for an acting assignment. Therefore, anyone who has been seconded or who was on acting assignment in a workplace other their permanent workplace since October 1, 2002 and who did not benefit from the provisions of the Travel Directive could come forward with their claim by the end of June 2008.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that employees in similar situations as the grievors were paid in the past and that the Memorandum was developed in order to ensure the consistent treatment for all employees who were seconded or were on acting assignments in a workplace other than their permanent workplace.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievors' circumstances entitle them to benefit from the provisions of the Travel Directive regardless of the fact that their residence is closer to the new workplace.
The Bargaining Agent representative referred to NJC grievance precedents 41.4.9 and 21.4.891 in support of his position that the grievors are entitled to the reimbursement of travel expenses during the period of their secondment.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative indicated that the NJC Travel has no application in the grievors' case; rather the NJC Relocation Directive applies.
The Departmental representative indicated that the terms of the grievors' secondment agreement make it clear that travel to the workplace from home and back will not be reimbursed. He referred to NJC grievance decisions 21.4.588 and PSSRB decision 2002 PSSRB 27 in support of the employer's proposition that the terms of the grievors' secondment agreement must be respected.
The Departmental representative indicated that the grievors are not out-of-pocket since the grievors' secondments brought them closer to their residence, with less commuting time and less transportation costs between their residence and the workplace. To reimburse the grievors their travel expenses would result in personal gain, which would be in contravention of the intent of the Travel Directive.
The Departmental representative indicated that paragraph 1.5.2 (d) of the Travel Directive requires that employees "complete and submit travel expense claims with necessary supporting documentation as soon as possible after the completion of the travel. In travel situations exceeding one month, the traveller may submit interim travel expense claims prior to the completion of the travel". The grievors waited until March 31, 2009 to file their expense claims for travel dating back to 2005.
The Departmental representative submitted that the April 14, 2008 Memorandum does not apply to the grievors' circumstances. The circumstances and allowances to which employees were entitled were described in an Appendix to the Memorandum. For travel outside the headquarters area, the Memorandum limited its application to very specific travel locations.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee noted that the Travel Committee could not come to an agreement on the intent of the Travel Directive in this case. The Executive Committee considered the additional information provided and circumstances in this case and agreed that there was no entitlement pursuant to the Travel Directive. As such, the grievances were denied.