June 2, 2000
21.4.619
The three employees grieved that the Department had failed to properly determine their entitlement to commuting assistance and requested commuting assistance to and from their residence.
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the employees did not dispute the designation of location "A" (approximately 20 km from the work site) as a suitable residential community. However, they requested that location "B" (approximately 120 km from the work site) also be designated as a suitable residential community as provided for in clause 1.2.5 of the Commuting Assistance Directive, and that they be granted commuting assistance for the distance from their individual residences to the work site retroactive to March 24, 1995.
The employees submit that the employer's decision to designate only one suitable residential community was primarily driven by budget considerations rather than the intent of the Commuting Assistance Directive.
The Departmental representative confirmed that employees working out of that work site have from time to time over the past number of years qualified for commuting assistance. One contributing factor to the intermittent nature of these payments was the changing demographics of the worker population, as from year to year, the percentage of employees residing within sixteen kilometres of the work site fluctuated, first above, then below the fifty per cent mark. At various times, both location "A" and location "B" have been designated unsuitable residential communities.
In December 1994, the major federal employer at that work site commissioned a survey of the work site.
In January 1995, the results of the survey confirmed that more than fifty per cent of the employees of that work site resided outside the sixteen kilometre radius referred to in the Directive. The results of the survey also clearly demonstrated that location "A" was a suitable residential community since there was sufficient accommodation available, adequate utilities, a hospital, a pharmacy, a post office, a bank, full grocery stores, clothing store, hardware store, educational facilities from kindergarten to grade 12, and finally an easily accessible road connecting it to the work site.
In March 1995, departmental and union representatives signed the Minutes of their Union/Management Meeting stating that they anticipated no problems with the proposal for commuting assistance from location "A" and that there were no outstanding issues on this topic.
The employer was satisfied that the December 1994 survey was conducted within the intent of the Commuting Assistance Directive and that location "A" had sufficient services to qualify as a suitable residential community.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee report which concluded that the grievors were treated within the intent of the Commuting Assistance Directive given that the results of the December 1994 survey commissioned by Revenue Canada appropriately designated Milk River as the nearest suitable residential community. The Committee also considered the unanimity on the issue among all employing federal departments at Coutts as well as the fact that CEUDA concurred during the consultation phase.
The grievance was denied.