May 1, 2014
21.4.1066
Background
The grievor is married with two children under the age of 18. The grievor's spouse is away from home for work obligations for a minimum of one week but usually for 10-12 days at a time.
The grievor expressed an interest in attending optional training. The grievor was authorized to attend the training and submitted a travel authorization form which included $250 for dependant care. Management informed the grievor prior to the departure that there was no eligiblility for dependant care under the Travel Directive and would therefore not be reimbursed for this expense. The grievor chose to attend the training event despite management's position on dependant care. Management maintains that the training was not mandatory and that the grievor was provided with the option of not attending after notification that childcare costs would not be reimbursed.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative argued that the grievor had not been treated within the intent of the Travel Directive by the Employer's refusal to reimburse childcare expenses while required to travel for work. The grievor was on travel status attending a training course that at one time had been deemed mandatory, though is now deemed to be recommended by the employer for the position.
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the narrow definition of "sole caregiver" in the Travel Directive does not allow for equal treatment of individuals. The Travel Directive includes two criteria to be met in order to qualify for reimbursement: (a) the employee is the sole caregiver of a dependant who is under 18 years of age or has a mental or physical disability; or (b) two federal employees living in the same household are the sole caregivers of a dependant who is under 18 years of age or has a mental or physical disability and both employees are required to travel on government business at the same time. The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor was in fact the sole caregiver of the children at the time of travel, as the spouse was out of the province for work obligations.
It was emphasized that due to the refusal by the Employer to reimburse childcare expenses, the grievor experienced adverse treatment based on gender, marital status, and family status. The grievor was not considered to be the sole caregiver because the grievor is married and shares a household. The grievor was disadvantaged due to the specific family situation and the refusal to pay childcare costs hinders the advancement opportunities by placing financial barriers for parents in the normal course of their duties. Moreover, the principles of the Travel Directive (trust, flexibility, respect, valuing people, transparency, modern travel practices) have not been followed, as the Employer has not assessed the grievor's specific family situation.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative emphasized that the Department is consistent in their application of section 3.5.5 of the Travel Directive. To be eligible for reimbursement of dependant care expenses, the following criteria must be satisfied: (a) the employee is the sole caregiver of a dependant who is under 18 years of age or has a mental or physical disability; or (b) two federal employees living in the same household are the sole caregivers of a dependant who is under 18 years of age or has a mental or physical disability and both employees are required to travel on government business at the same time.
Although the grievor was on travel status attending training and was solely responsible for the children while the spouse was out of town for work, the grievor shares a household with a spouse, who is not a federal employee. The grievor chose to attend training that was not prescribed as mandatory, and was advised by management that dependant care would not be approved. Therefore, as per section 3.3.5, the Travel Directive does not provide reimbursement of child care expenses where there is another caregiver, even where that caregiver is temporarily unavailable. Based on the information presented, the Department believes the grievor situation does not meet the condition of "sole caregiver" and was treated within the intent of the Directive.
The Departmental representative referred to NJC decision 21.4.1031, which demonstrated that though the employee did not meet the definition of "sole caregiver," the dependant care was allowed on an exceptional basis, given the fact that the training was mandatory. Therefore, this decision does not constitute a future obligation for the Department; each case needs to be evaluated independently and treated in accordance with the criteria and intent of the Travel Directive.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee and noted the impasse. The Executive Committee considered the information and circumstances in this grievance and agreed that the employee did not meet the definition of sole caregiver as established by the NJC Travel Directive.
The Executive Committee upheld the grievance on an exceptional basis and noted that reimbursement should be provided pursuant to the limits outlined in section 3.1.5 of the Directive because it took into account the fact that the training was recommended for professional development and that the grievor was involuntarily separated from the spouse for extended periods.
The Executive Committee defined what constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances' as follows:
The employee's spouse must be away from the household for employment purposes for extended periods of time and be away during the time of the employee's scheduled mandatory training thereby preventing said spouse to care for any dependants.
As for when training is mandatory, it noted that the employer should refrain from changing mandatory training into voluntary training for the sole purpose of avoiding payment of dependant care. Training directly related to the employee's position, recommended to be taken by all staff and for which there is no other scheduled date in the foreseeable future, could be seen as mandatory by the employer, on a case by case basis.