December 18, 2013
21.4.1059
Background
In September 2012 the employee, who is stationed in Country A was required to travel to Country B. The original travel plan would have seen the employee depart on a Sunday evening and fly direct to Country B. This itinerary would have resulted in over nine hours of continuous travel thereby entitling the employee to a business class air ticket. In an effort to reduce costs, the Employer authorized an alternate itinerary which would have required the employee to depart a day earlier and fly direct from Country A to Country C, overnight in Country C and spend a day in transit before flying from Country C to Country B. As air travel time in the second itinerary was divided and therefore less than nine continuous hours the employee would travel in economy class. Given the dispute over itineraries the employee refused to travel and no trip was undertaken.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the Department failed to observe section 3.4.11 of the Travel Directive. The representative indicated that the section in question stipulates that business/executive class air travel shall be authorized where continuous air travel exceeds nine hours. The original itinerary proposed would have allowed the grievor to travel to the destination in one day with as little disruption to life as possible. However, this would have entitled the grievor to business class air travel. In an effort to reduce travel costs, the Department sought to have the grievor travel according to an alternate itinerary. This new itinerary would have increased the total travel time to two days and would have obliged the grievor to depart on a Saturday and spend one day in transit.
The representative indicated that while the Department claims the cost difference between economy and business class travel would have been $2000 the actual difference would have been lower. It was noted that the Department's estimate does not take into account additional costs incurred as a result of the extended travel time. These include overtime, accommodation, meals, taxis and incidentals.
Furthermore, the representative submitted that the itinerary imposed by the Department also conflicts with the intent of the Directive in that it is not practical, unduly prolongs the grievor's travel and fails to take into account the disruption to the grievor's life.
The Bargaining Agent representative therefore requested that the grievance be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that the grievor was approached regarding the possibility of business travel to Country B. Following this initial discussion two itineraries were identified as options: 1) Country A – Country B and 2) Country A – Country C (overnight) – Country B. As the first option would have required the Department to purchase a more expensive airfare it opted for the second itinerary. It was indicated that, given the cost savings, it was deemed reasonable to require the grievor to stay overnight in a safe city while traveling to the destination.
The representative submitted that section 3.4.11 identifies economy as the standard class of air travel and requires that the lowest available airfares appropriate to particular itineraries be sought. It is therefore the Department's position that its decision to select a more cost effective itinerary is in line with the intent 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 Government Travel Committee which concluded that based on the facts and the evidence and information presented, the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. The Committee noted that the application of section 3.4.11 of the Directive should be based on a comprehensive review of the circumstances of each case. Likewise, the total cost should not be the only consideration when making arrangements. Rather, the values and principles of the Directive must also be taken into account. Furthermore, in accordance with section 1.1.1 of the Directive, the Employer and employee need to discuss their respective needs and ensure that travel is authorized accordingly. This will ensure that the principles outlined in the Directive are respected. As such, the grievance is denied.