December 18, 2013
21.4.1061
Background
The employee is grieving the Employer's refusal to reimburse a travel claim as submitted on July 8, 2011.
The employee originally held an indeterminate position at a department in City A. The employee later accepted a secondment with a different department in City B, on June 16, 2009 for the period of June 15, 2009 to May 31, 2010. On January 25, 2010 the grievor accepted a transfer to the new department's City B office, thereby ending the secondment.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor sought out a position in City B with the understanding that it would constitute a deployment. However, upon arriving in City B the grievor was informed that no such deployment existed. The grievor instead signed a secondment agreement for the period in question. As the lease in City A could not be terminated, the grievor continued to make rental payments while residing in another city with family during the secondment.
The representative submitted that the Employer's claim that the grievor sought out the secondment in order to be closer to an ailing mother in City B was incorrect. It was indicated that the grievor's mother was not ill and this was not a motivating factor.
The representative indicated that the Employer has a responsibility to inform employees, in a timely manner, of their entitlements under the Travel Directive and the procedures for reimbursement. It was noted that the Employer failed to advise the grievor of the entitlements under the Directive prior to the signing of the secondment agreement.
Consequently, the Bargaining Agent representative requested that the grievance be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that the Employer sought to temporarily staff the position in question while the employee who occupied the position on a permanent basis was on assignment elsewhere in the Department. Given that the position was only temporarily vacated the Employer had no intention of staffing it via deployment, as suggested by the Bargaining Agent representative. Rather, the Employer, being confident of its ability to temporarily staff the position from amongst qualified personnel within the region, chose not to pursue a formal advertised staffing process. It was indicated that the grievor learned of the position from a series of forwarded emails. The initial email originated from within one department and was addressed to that department's employees. The grievor subsequently contacted the department's management expressing interest in the position. The representative noted that neither the department nor the previous department made any request to have the grievor seconded. Instead, it was the grievor who sought out the position.
The representative noted that at no point did the grievor receive written or verbal authorization to travel. Likewise, management did not indicate that the grievor was on government business travel or that there would be reimbursement of travel cost. The grievor's secondment agreement provides no such authorization.
Furthermore, the Directive defines headquarters area as spanning an area of 16 km from the assigned workplace using the most direct, safe and practical road. It was submitted that as a result of the grievor's secondment, the assigned workplace was City B. Had the grievor received authorization to travel outside of this area, the Employer would be in a position to reimburse travel costs.
The Departmental representative therefore 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 the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Directive. The grievor's secondment did not constitute government business travel nor was prior authorization to travel received. As the grievor was not on travel status, the grievance is denied.