July 29, 2015
21.4.1083
Background
The employees work for Department A. In accordance with the grievors' work descriptions, there is a "regular requirement to travel". Most travel occurs within the headquarters area.
Until May 2010, the grievors were reimbursed for their personal vehicle parking expenses at their home office by either submitting receipts for daily parking, or their invoice if they were monthly parkers which Finance pro-rated to account only for the days that they were claiming to have reimbursed (i.e. the days which they used their personal vehicle for government business).
In May 2010, Finance began to question this practice and sought clarification from the Department's Designated Travel Coordinators (DDTC). The DDTC informed Finance that parking at a home office is not related to the situation of travel as it is the monthly parking the grievors use every day for work. As such, in June 2010, Finance began adjusting the grievors' travel expense claim forms by removing the parking expenses submitted, related to parking at the home office. At this time, local management began raising concerns regarding this issue and sought further clarification on the change in policy. Clarification was received in July 2010 from a DDTC at Headquarters. The information relayed at this time to local management and finance was that: "We must not reimburse the employee for the parking at the regular work office for a portion of the daily parking nor the portion of the monthly parking plan… we must encourage the usage of a Taxi."
The grievors note that they were never informed of this change in policy and hence, are grieving the Department's decision to adjust their travel expense claims.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative contended that reimbursing employees pro-rated amounts for monthly parking on days that the grievors utilize their vehicles in the performance of their duties meets the intention of the NJC Travel Directive. The representative noted that the grievors have no choice but to use a private motor vehicle (PMV) to conduct their duties as they often cannot be pre-planned. It is contended by the representative that although management has encouraged other means of transportation this is not feasible. For example, not only taxi vouchers are not available in the regions, but requiring an employee to use a taxi to conduct their duties is a safety risk. Furthermore, this regional office does not have access to fleet vehicles.
The Bargaining Agent representative further stated that pro-rating the grievors' monthly parking pass, for the days which they use their vehicle for government business only, is not only cost-saving for the employer (i.e. less expensive than paying a daily parking pass, using a taxi, or renting a vehicle) but is time-saving as well (employees can quickly access their own vehicle to leave and then return to their designated parking spot immediately following conducting their work).
Finally, the Bargaining Agent representative noted that the grievors' manager not only supported the use of PMVs, but had approved the grievors' parking expenditures prior to the grievors' incurring them. As such, it is the view of the Bargaining Agent representative that the grievances should be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative maintained that the grievors were treated within the intent of the Government Travel Directive. The representative stated that the provisions of the Directive are not designed to constitute income or other compensation that would open the way for personal gain. As no additional cost is incurred by employees who obtain monthly parking passes on days that they are required to use their private motor vehicle for government business, nor is their regular commuting pattern interrupted, pro-rating parking charges for the days in question would result in an enrichment/personal gain for the employees. The Departmental representative further clarified that employees are not required to have their personal vehicles at work; it is a personal choice.
The Departmental representative noted that it is the Department's position that all out of pocket expenses are being reimbursed when employees are authorized to use their PMV for travel. It was confirmed by the representative that employees who chose to park daily are reimbursed the additional expense to park at the office on the days they use their PMV for government business. As such, it is the Departmental representative's view that the grievances be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee reviewed the report of the Travel Committee and noted that it could not come to an agreement on the intent of the Directive. The Executive Committee could not reach consensus either. As such, the Committee reached an impasse.