July 12, 2013
25.4.153
Background
The employees are posted in City A of Country X and are employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).
AMEX, the authorized travel provider, is charged with determining the Vacation Travel Assistance (VTA) rates which take effect June 1 of each year. The amount of the VTA represents 80% of a return full fare economy (Y) ticket for travel between the mission and the headquarters city. The VTA for City A, Country X, changed significantly between 2009 and 2010.
A VTA was issued for Employee 1 and one dependant in February 2011, and for Employee 2 and one dependant in March 2011. Both employees are grieving the DFAIT's interpretation of FSD 50 - Vacation Travel Assistance.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that in July 2010 the mission sought clarification on how the 2010 VTA rate was derived. On October 26, 2010, the methodology was explained to the mission. It was specified that the rates are based on 80% of a return full-fare economy ticket. On December 21, 2010, the mission was provided with the fare ladder used to calculate the 2010 allocation. It showed the official route being used and the booking class "K" with Qatar Airways, "V" with British Airways, and "Y" with Air Canada. The Bargaining Agent representative stressed that "K" Thrift and "V" Thrift Discounted classes are not full fares, but were used to do the calculation, whereas FSD 50 specifies that "Y" full fare economy should be used for the calculation. On January 26, 2011, a list of Canada Based Staff who concurred with the points raised by the grievors was provided to CIDA. The Bargaining Agent representative mentioned that on July 4, 2011, an Air Canada agent based in City A, confirmed that "K" and "V" class fares are discounted fares. Using an unrestricted fare would have resulted in a higher FSD rate. He explained that the "Y" class fare was available from several agents in the travel industry in City A, therefore it should have been available to DFAIT. The onus was on the department to ensure that the proper rate was to be used by its provider (AMEX). As such, the Bargaining Agent representative is of the view that the 2010 FSD 50 annual rate for City A, Country X should be recalculated using full (Y) economy fare for all segments of a return journey from City A, Country X to Ottawa.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that DFAIT contracted AMEX to provide the full economy fares with no restrictions for all missions, including City A. The rates were submitted to Working Group A, which recommended their approval. The employer's position is that the methodology was respected. After the exchanges with one of the grievors, DFAIT requested a review of the rates from AMEX. AMEX explained the coding used, and confirmed that a full fare economy class was used to establish the rate, and stated that the review resulted in the same rate. Therefore, DFAIT could not submit revised rates to Working Group A. It was noted that Air Canada has agreements in place with other airlines for destinations it does not service, such as Country X. The Departmental representative indicated that when booking with Qatar Airways and British Airways in the Sabre system, such as in the fare ladder used to calculate the 2010 allocation, AMEX and many travel agencies across the world have to use the code "K" to access the agreement. The Departmental representative explained that every airline uses their own fare codes; therefore, the "Y" may not represent the full economy fare for all airlines and international agreements. The Departmental representative concluded by noting that the intent of the directive was met: to provide an allowance for vacation travel based on a rate established using a methodology approved by the NJC.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee noted that the Foreign Service Directives Committee could not come to an agreement on the intent of the Directive in this case. The Executive Committee considered the Committee's report and could not reach consensus either. As such, the Committee reached an impasse.