April 25, 2013
21.4.1046
Background
The grievor was authorized to travel to City A from February 28 to March 2, 2012 to attend an International meeting. The Employer offers a shuttle service that transports personnel to and from the City B airport and runs on a set schedule. The grievor lives 153 km away from the airport and the regular hours of work are from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that on January 25, 2012 or thereabouts, the grievor submitted a travel request and approval form for the conference in question. At the time, the grievor discussed the method of travel with the travel clerk and both agreed that the use of the grievor's personal motor vehicle (PMV) was reasonable as it minimized the grievor's wait time during travel and allowed the grievor to travel within normal business hours thus eliminating overtime.
The grievor was subsequently informed by the manager, on February 10, 2012, that the use of the PMV was not authorized. Instead, the grievor was to use the shuttle service as this was standard practice. The representative submitted that the use of the shuttle service would have required the grievor to travel outside the normal work hours and would have forced the grievor to wait for 5 hours at the airport upon return. The representative indicated that the shuttle service operates on a fixed schedule which did not accommodate the grievor's circumstances and was neither convenient nor practicable.
The representative explained that as the grievor had not received a response to his verbal and written enquiries regarding the use of the PMV from the manager and was leaving on business the following day, the grievor contacted the conference organizers in City A to obtain authorization. The representative indicated that the grievor understood the City A contact persons to be the sponsors and funding authority for the conference. On February 17, 2012 the grievor was informed that the funds manager for the conference had approved the request to use the PMV.
The representative noted that the grievor was away from February 17 to 26, 2012. On February 27, 2012 the manager verbally informed the grievor that authorization to use the PMV had been rescinded. On this same date, the travel clerk provided the grievor with a travel claim for signature which still indicated the PMV as the method of travel. However, the clerk instructed the grievor to use the 6:30 a.m. shuttle for travel to the airport for departure on February 28, 2012 and the 5:00 p.m. shuttle to travel from the airport upon return. The clerk informed the grievor that an ealier pick up on return was possible as early as 3:40 p.m. The representative indicated that the grievor did not receive written notification of the rescinded authorization until March 8, 2012.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the Employer failed to respect sections 1.1 and 3.3.11 of the NJC Travel Directive. The representative noted that the Employer failed to properly consult the grievor when forming travel arrangements and did not take into account the personal situation. The representative suggested that it was unreasonable to expect the grievor to wait several hours at the airport upon return. Such a requirement is particularly unreasonable given that the grievor was away from family from February 17 to 26, 2012 on bussiness and then was expected to take part in the conference from February 28 to March 2, 2012.
The representative further submitted that a Departmental expert on NJC Directives had confirmed to a union steward that a 2-3 hour wait was unreasonable.
The Bargaining Agent representative therefore requested that the grievor be reimbursed the applicable kilometric rate for the use of the PMV as well as airport parking fees while on travel status.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative indicated that the grievor was informed on several occasions that the request to use the PMV was denied: first on February 10 and again on February 27, 2012. It was noted that section 1.1 of the Directive requires pre-authorization of travel related expenses. The representative suggested that the authorization obtained by the grievor through the conference organizers was an attempt to circumvent management's earlier decision.
The representative also explained that the grievor was initially informed to wait for the 5 p.m. shuttle upon return. The grievor was verbally informed on February 27, 2012 that the earlier shuttle would wait for the grievor to arrive thereby eliminating the lengthy wait time.
With respect to the Bargaining Agent's submission that the travel claim signed by the grievor on February 27, 2012 continued to reflect the authorization for the use of the PMV, the Departmental representative indicated that the grievor was verbally informed that the shuttle was to be used and not the PMV. Furthermore, the grievor's cancellation of the shuttle booking following the meeting with management suggests that the grievor understood that the shuttle was to be the mode of transportation.
The representative indicated that the grievor's reasons for using the PMV were personal and unrelated to the purpose of travel. Given the grievor's reasons and the availability of the shuttle, the representative submits that it is not within the intent of the Directive to reimburse the grievor for the use of the PMV. Likewise, the grievor was repeatedly informed that the use of the PMV was not authorized however chose to act counter to management's instructions. The representative submitted that the grievor ought to have abided by the principle of "Obey now, grieve later".
The representative indicated that management's request that the grievor use the shuttle was reasonable, appropriate and in line with the intent of the Directive. It was submitted that the shuttle service was the most cost and time efficient, convenient, safe and practical mode of transportation, in accordance with section 3.3.11 of the Directive.
Consequently, the Departmental representative requested that the grievance be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor had been treated within the intent of sections 1.1 and 3.3.11 of the NJC Travel Directive. As such, the grievance is denied.
The Committee noted that a key element of the Directive is the requirement for pre-authorization of travel arrangements following meaningful consultation between the Employer and the employee and that consultation should include the consideration of factors including, but not limited to, cost, duration, convenience, safety and practicality. The Committee also underlined the need to consider an employee's personal situation, as appropriate, when developing travel plans.