January 26, 2012
21.4.1027
Background
The employee grieved the employer's failure to reimburse travel expenses in violation of the Travel Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor responded to a job opportunity advertisement for a senior position in May 2008. It was noted that the advertisement contained no mention that the assignment could be terminated early. Following the grievor's successful candidacy and verbal acceptance of the position in question, a welcome package was received from the Agency on December 3, 2008. The package provided information on rent and parking rate entitlements. While the package also discouraged employees from signing a lease, nowhere did it state that the grievor would be responsible if the lease was not fulfilled.
The package also directed employees to arrange their accommodations in accordance with the Travel Directive. The Travel Directive does not direct against the signing of leases. Furthermore, the grievor sought guidance with respect to accommodation and was informed, via email on December 9, 2008, that the grievor could "stay anywhere as long as it does not exceed the $2695.00 per month max".
The Bargaining Agent representative similarly submitted that the Letter of Offer dated February 3, 2009 did not provide information to the effect that the acting assignment could be shortened.
Upon arrival in City A the grievor signed a lease for an apartment on February 12, 2009. The term of the lease was for the remainder of the assignment, March 6, 2009 to January 31, 2010.
Upon learning of the termination of the assignment, the grievor exercised due diligence by trying to mitigate expenses. The grievor unsuccessfully requested an amended termination date of October 31, 2009. The grievor subsequently attempted to sublet the apartment for the remainder of the lease and placed online advertisements in an effort to find a tenant. This was without success. Additionally, the grievor attempted to secure another assignment inOttawato no avail.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the directive encourages the use of apartments as accommodation for periods of travel status of more than 30 consecutive days. Furthermore, it provides for modern travel practices and highlighted that the industry trend and reality is that most apartments require a lease agreement. It was also noted that the purpose of the directive is to ensure that employees are not out of pocket and that they are reimbursed expenses reasonably incurred. Reimbursement of the expenses in question would not lead to personal gain but rather compensate for out of pocket costs.
As the grievor was unaware that the assignment would be terminated early and was not specifically instructed not to sign a lease nor was the grievor advised of the potential consequences of doing so, the incurred expenses should be reimbursed so as not to be out of pocket, per the Travel Directive.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor was advised against signing a lease. The Agency's welcome package discouraged the signing of a lease and strongly recommended that employees ensure that they have the ability to provide 30 days (or less) notice to move. At no point did the grievor seek clarification with respect to leases.
The terms and conditions of the Agency Assignment form, signed by the grievor on January 7, 2009, specified that the assignment could be terminated at any time on two weeks notice.
The department became aware of the signed lease after the fact during a meeting between the grievor and the host manager to discuss errors in submitted travel claims. At that time the manager reminded the grievor that the grievor was not to enter into a lease agreement.
Throughout the assignment period during which the grievor was on travel status, the applicable maximums as per the directive and the department's policy upon presentation of travel claims, were reimbursed.
The Departmental representative explained that as a result of budget cuts management made the decision to end twelve employee assignments early, including that of the grievor. The affected employees were advised in early September 2009 that their assignments would end on October 31, 2009. The grievor returned to City B on October 31, 2009.
It was indicated that prior to the return, the grievor met the host manager and verbally requested that the Agency reimburse $8,040 – the balance of the cost of rent and parking for the lease term. The manager consulted with Corporate Finance who advised that the grievor was not on travel status in November 2009, December 2009 and January 2010 and therefore was not entitled to reimbursement under the directive. On November 14, 2009 the manager communicated this to the grievor and denied the request. It was noted that neither a formal claim nor receipts for the period were provided.
The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor failed to meet the obligations under section 1.5.2 of the directive as the grievor did not become familiar with its provisions despite being referred to the Directive through the Agency's welcome package. The grievor demonstrated this by improperly completing the first set of travel claims provided to management and by signing a lease for a two bedroom apartment when section 3.3.1 of the Directive outlines that the standard for accommodation is a single room.
The Departmental representative submitted that the purpose and scope of the Directive is to provide for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses necessarily incurred while travelling on government business. As the grievor was no longer travelling on government business effective November 1, 2009, the grievor was not entitled to reimbursement for rent and parking under the Directive. Consequently, the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Travel Committee and noted the impasse. The Executive Committee considered the information and circumstances in this grievance and agreed that the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. It was agreed that the grievor was appropriately advised of the termination of the assignment and that the grievor was no longer on travel status as of November 1, 2009, therefore ineligible for reimbursement under the Travel Directive. As such, the grievance was denied.