March 10, 2015
21.4.1081
Background
The grievors attended an out of town workshop. The grievors' Travel Advance and Authority (TAA) forms for travel indicated that they were to drive together in a personal motor vehicle; claim for meals and incidentals for the trip; and return together by train. Neither grievor noted the requirement to be accommodated for the meal provided on the train. Upon review of the travel claims, the amounts were reduced by a dinner allowance as dinner had been provided by Via Rail. No receipts or declarations were provided by the grievors.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that before boarding the train home, the grievors purchased dinner. Despite the fact that a dinner was provided on the train, it was only served at 7:30 p.m. and fish was the only available option. As such, the Bargaining Agent representative stressed that 7:30 p.m. would have not been a reasonable time to expect the grievors to have dinner.
Both grievors submitted a TAA which included the dinner meal allowance and it was approved by the Employer. The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the Employer's approval of the TAA indicated to the grievors that they were to be compensated for a dinner meal on the return trip as per the Directive. It is to be noted that the meal allowances are offered in lieu of receipts in order to decrease the financial administrative burden on the Employer. The grievors purchased the dinner meal based on their prior authorization and as such, did not provide receipts for the expense. The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the Department knew that a meal would be offered on the return trip, as it is standard practice on business-class rail travel. Nonetheless, a dinner meal allowance was approved on the return trip for both grievors. The grievors then, relying on the Employer's written approval, purchased a dinner meal.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative maintained that when management approved the TAA, the grievors did not mention a requirement to eat meals at a set time. If the grievors needed accommodations, they should have informed either Via Rail or management. The fact that the grievors purchased a meal prior to boarding the train does not support the argument that only fish was available as they had no knowledge prior to the departure that it was the only option left.
The grievors had the responsibility to submit their travel expense claims with the necessary supporting documentation after they travelled which they failed to do. The representative also noted that the TAA is only an estimate and is subject to review. Therefore, its approval does not constitute a guarantee of payment.
The Departmental representative submitted that allowing the reimbursement for a meal allowance would result in a personal gain as the grievors never incurred the cost of the dinner. In fact, they purchased chips and nuts for dinner and the reimbursement of the full amount would constitute a gain. Furthermore, the grievors knew that the train was scheduled to depart at 6:12 p.m., thus delaying the hour for dinner.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievors were treated within the intent of the Directive. The Committee noted that the grievors should have submitted receipts to supplement their meal expenses or produced a self-declaration. As such, the grievances are denied.