May 7, 2015
21.4.1085
Background
The grievor and spouse worked for Department A. Before retiring, the grievor occupied a PM-03 position.
The grievor was initially working in City A. In 2012, the grievor was informed by the Employer that the substantive position in City A was to be relocated to City B. At the same time, the grievor's spouse obtained a position in City C. Given the situation, both parties (Employer and grievor) agreed that the grievor would work from the City C office effective November 2012. In March 2013, the grievor was offered a PM-03 position in City C, effective March 2013.
In October 2013, the grievor submitted a travel claim to be reimbursed expenses for travelling to and from the City C location from November 2012 to March 2013, which was denied by the Department.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. The Bargaining Agent representative states that although not requested by the grievor, the grievor received authorization from the Employer to work via an arrangement out of an office in City C. The Bargaining Agent representative stated that this arrangement continued for a four month period without any official notice or written agreement, despite the grievor asking on a number of occasions for authorization in writing.
The Bargaining Agent representative is of the opinion that the point of contention lies with the grievor's status from the period of November 2012 – March 2013. As the grievor was instructed by the Employer in both an email and via a telephone conversation to begin reporting to work in City C, and was authorized to perform the duties of the substantive position from the City C office, it is the position of the Bargaining Agent representative that there can be no debate that the grievor was on government travel during the period in question and hence, entitled to be reimbursed for his retroactive travel claims.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative maintained that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Government Travel Directive. Travel expenses and meal allowances were never pre-approved by the Employer. The arrangement for the grievor to work out of a City C office was made to accommodate the grievor's family situation (spouse being deployed to City C). Furthermore, the Employer noted that an employee on telework or hoteling is not entitled to the provisions of the Travel Directive. It is the Departmental representative's position that as the grievor was never required to travel on government business, nor were the travel expenses pre-approved by management, the grievor was not considered to be on travel status during the four months in question and hence, is not entitled to the provisions of the Travel Directive. As such, the grievance should be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive. The Committee agreed that the grievor was not on travel status from November 2012 to March 2013 but rather, was in a telework or hoteling situation. Furthermore, the Committee noted that in cases such as this, a thorough discussion needs to take place between management and the employee prior to any change in work location and all agreements should be confirmed in writing. As such, the grievance is denied.