September 4, 2013
21.4.1040, 21.4.1041
Background
Prior to the circumstances giving rise to the grievances, Grievor 1's permanent workplace was a regional reception centre and Grievor 2's was at another establishment, both of which are located in City X. The employees' permanent workplace later changed to a federal training center in City Y. However, due to operational issues both employees were assigned to their previous permanent workplaces. As a result, the employees were on authorized travel status from the federal training center back to their original workplaces. The employees therefore never presented to work at the federal training center until the termination of their respective assignments.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained the differences in the grievors' situations and their requested corrective action. Grievor 1 works a 12-hour day shift and as such is seeking reimbursement of two meals, one each at the lunch and dinner meal rates. As a result of the transfer, Grievor 1 relocated to City Z in order to be closer to the new workplace thus changing the commuting pattern. Grievor 2 works an 8-hour shift with varying start times. Given that the shift can take place either during the day or the evening, the grievor is seeking reimbursement of the meal allowance based on the start time of the shift. Grievor 2 resides in City Y therefore the assignment to another establishment resulted in a longer commuting distance and additional costs. Both grievors are seeking the reimbursement of the applicable kilometric and meal rates, as described, for the duration of their assignments.
The representative noted that although the Employer upheld the grievances in part at the second level it only agreed to grant the grievors the lunch meal rate. It was submitted that this does not take into account the duration and time of day of the grievors' shifts. Furthermore, established precedent in 2012-PSLRB-112 (Joly and Bernatchez v. Treasury Board) suggests that one meal period, and thus one meal allowance, is insufficient for a 12-hour shift.
The representative also indicated that section 3.2.11 of the Directive provides for the reimbursement of additional transportation costs when authorized travel causes a disruption to an employee's regular commuting pattern. It was suggested that as both grievors were subject to a greater commuting distance while on travel status they are entitled to a reimbursement of the kilometric rate while on assignment.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative indicated that as the grievors were on travel status they were entitled to reimbursement of additional transportation costs had their authorized travel resulted in a disruption to their regular commuting pattern. However, as the grievors' workplaces never physically changed from the time of their transfer to the time of their assignment no additional costs were incurred. As such, neither grievor is eligible for reimbursement of the kilometric rate.
The representative acknowledged that section 3.2.9 of the Directive provides for the payment of meal allowances while on travel status. It was noted that the grievors were reimbursed the meal rate in accordance with the meal sequence of breakfast, lunch and dinner. In this instance, the grievors received the lunch meal rate. With respect to the Bernatchez decision, it was suggested that it should not be considered as a judicial review is currently underway.
Executive Committee Decision
The Committee considered the evidence presented and concluded that the grievors had in part been treated within the intent of section 3.2.9 of the Directive. As the grievors were on travel status outside their headquarters area, they are entitled to reimbursement of the meal rate in sequence. The mid-shift meal rate is the lunch rate. As such the grievors should be reimbursed the lunch meal rate for each shift worked while on assignment. The Committee notes that the Employer granted the lunch meal rate in its second level reply. In the case of Grievor 1, the 12-hour shift would also give an entitlement to a second meal allowance which, in accordance with the meal sequence, should be at the dinner meal rate.
With respect to the reimbursement of transportation costs in accordance with section 3.2.11, the Committee concluded that the grievors had not been treated within the intent of the Directive. Given the grievors' travel status, they should be reimbursed the applicable kilometric rate from their residence to their place of work during their assignment, for the duration of their assignment, via the most direct, safe and practical road routes.
As such, it is recommended that the grievances be upheld in part, to the extent noted above.