Travel Directive – Travel status – sea trials

Background

The employees grieved management's refusal to fill out a Travel Authority Form for the periods when they were required to be aboard ships during sea trials, and effectively, the denial of entitlements under the NJC Travel Directive.

Bargaining Agent Presentation

The Bargaining Agent representative began by reviewing the agreed statement of facts in order to provide the chronology of events and further background. The bargaining agent noted that the department relied on the interpretation from the Treasury Board Secretariat in determining the applicability of the Directive and the employee's collective agreement. This was the only reason received by the employees in the grievance denial letters. This interpretation contends that the employees are not on travel status as they are covered by the provisions of Article 32. The Bargaining Agent representative is in disagreement with the reasoning used to determine travel status believing that the application is incorrect. Specifically, article 32 compensates employees for the risk and inconvenience of performing sea trial work, while article 27 reimburses travel expenses while on travel status. The entitlements set out in article 32 are separate and distinct from the entitlements in article 27; the former does not operate in lieu of the latter.

The grievors' permanent/regular workplace was location A. The Bargaining Agent representative noted that article 37 Temporary Assignment specifically deals with temporary assignment and employee entitlements when outside the headquarters area. In accordance with clause 27.02 of the collective agreement, an employee on temporary assignment shall be entitled to reimbursement for all reasonable expenses in accordance with the current travel policy. All grievors in these cases were assigned temporary duties outside their headquarters area of location A.

The Bargaining Agent representative further indicated that the exception outlined in article 37.05 is limited to employees who are assigned to a ship to perform maintenance on the ship's electronic equipment as his or her primary duty on a continuing basis. The representative explained that the grievors do not perform maintenance on ships. Rather, the purpose of employees aboard HMCS vessels is data collection, evaluating and assessing the status of the ship's equipment and the modification and refitting of equipment. In fact, the Gazette Group Definitions strictly prohibits the employees from performing maintenance on Navy ships.

The Bargaining Agent representative also noted that employees working in the west coast, performing the same duties, have in the past received and continue to receive signed travel authorities and the allowances and coverage that accompany them. As stated in the Directive, the NJC Travel Principles were developed to achieve fair, reasonable and modern travel practices across the public service. The decisions taken by the employer and the department in these cases have not been fair, nor have they been consistently applied across the public service.

Departmental Presentation

The Departmental representative began by explaining that in their capacity, the grievors were called upon to test electronics equipment onboard vessels and submarines also known as sea trials. Due to interference from other sources, the vessels proceed from location A to perform testing. In the case of these grievances, the grievors boarded the vessels within the headquarters area, proceeded outside the headquarters area for the trials, and then returned to headquarters after the trials. At that point, the grievors disembarked the vessels.

The decision to deny the request for Travel Authority Forms was based on several points, including the appropriate governing authority, transparency, personal gain, managerial discretion and interpretation.

Firstly, the Travel Directive states that "it does not apply to those persons whose travel is governed by other authorities." Article 32.01 of the employees' collective agreement governs ongoing travel of the vessel and those onboard, and article 32.03 addresses employees' compensation for hours worked aboard the vessel or shore-based work site. While the employees were travelling aboard a vessel or submarine during a sea trial, they were being compensated in accordance with their collective agreement and are thus governed by its authority. Therefore the NJC Travel Directive cannot apply. The Departmental representative further stated that when assessing the intent of the Directive and considering other employees who perform work aboard vessels, it is reasonable to conclude that the grievors are aboard a self contained vessel, similar to other employees. Module 4.2.2 of the Travel Directive states that an employee is deemed to be within the headquarters area, whether or not the vessel is actually within the headquarters area. It would be inconsistent to identify that these employees would be subject to the Directive in a situation where other employees would not be. The representative submitted that had this previously been a live issue, the department would have sought greater clarity within the Directive at the time of the last cyclical review.

It was noted that the purpose and scope of the Travel Directive is to ensure that employees are not out of pocket while on government travel. However during sea trials, meals and accommodation are provided. The accommodation provided is governed by article 38.01 of the employees collective agreement, and therefore the Travel Directive does not apply. As such, the employees are not travelling in accordance with the Travel Directive while onboard a vessel during sea trials. Additionally, if these employees are also in receipt of the benefits of the Travel Directive, they would potentially be receiving multiple forms of compensation in recognition of a single situation – being displaced to a vessel in lieu of one's dwelling.

Although the Departmental representative was not aware of the circumstances surrounding the west coast travel authorities, the employees could be aboard vessels for reasons other than the performance of sea trials.

Lastly, according to the Directive, the employer is responsible to determine a number of key aspects of the application of the Directive. Section 1.1.1 requires the employer to authorize and determine when travel is necessary, and to ensure that all travel arrangements are consistent with the provisions of the Directive. The employer has determined that the vessel constitutes the headquarters area, and that time aboard a vessel for the purposes of conducting a sea trial does not constitute government travel.

The Departmental representative reiterated that the grievors were compensated in accordance with the sea trials specific articles of their collective agreement. Granting authority to travel based on the Travel Directive would be inconsistent with the Directive's stated application where the collective agreement is the applicable authority. Therefore the grievors are not subject to the Travel Directive while they are onboard vessels conducting sea trials.

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 Committee's report and could not reach consensus either. As such, the Committee reached an impasse.