January 21, 2013
21.4.1037
Background
The employee grieved the denial of reimbursement of travel costs for an overtime shift that was required to be worked on May 1, 2011, a normal day off.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor was required to report to work on a day of rest for a shift of non-contiguous overtime. The representative submits that as a result of this requirement the grievor's normal commuting pattern was altered in that the grievor would not otherwise have reported to work on the day in question.
The representative also indicated that in using the personal motor vehicle to travel to work to complete the shift, the grievor incurred fuel costs and the vehicle was subject to wear and tear.
The representative further noted that the grievor had previously been reimbursed for mileage accrued as a result of non-contiguous overtime shifts on March 21 and 23, 2011.
The representative submits that precedent exists to support the reimbursement of mileage in this instance, most notably via a request for clarification (21.4.102) issued by the NJC in 1984.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative indicated that the grievor was informed on February 28, 2011 of the overtime shift and that no discussion with management of the need to reimburse travel costs took place.
The representative noted that the grievor usually travels to work by way of the personal motor vehicle and did so when reporting for the overtime shift. As parking is free of charge no additional travel costs were incurred. The representative referenced section 3.1.11 of Travel Directive: "When authorized travel or overtime causes a disruption in the employee's regular commuting pattern, the employee shall be reimbursed additional transportation costs incurred between the residence and the workplace."
The representative submits that as there was no disruption to the grievor's commuting pattern and no additional costs were incurred the grievor is not entitled to reimbursement of travel costs under the Directive.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of section 3.1.11 of the NJC Travel Directive. The Committee agreed that, as the grievor reported to work for a shift of non-contiguous overtime on a day of rest, when the grievor would not otherwise have done so, additional travel costs were incurred. As such, the grievance was upheld.