July 29, 2015
21.4.1087, 21.4.1088
Background
Grievor A:
The grievor occupies a position with Department A and had applied on an internal selection process. On a Saturday in January 2011, the grievor attended a test as part of this selection process and claimed the reimbursement of the travel expenses (meals, incidentals, and kilometres). The grievor is grieving management's decision to deny the request for travel expenses.
Grievor B:
The grievor occupies a position with Department A and had applied on an internal selection process. In October 2010, a scheduled day of rest, the grievor attended a written exam for this selection process. In February 2011, another scheduled day of rest, the grievor participated in an interview for this same process.
The invitation to attend the written exam states that no overtime or travel will be provided or reimbursed as a result of participating in the selection process. The grievor is grieving management's decision to deny travel expenses (meals, incidentals and kilometres) for the two days in question.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative emphasized that the grievors were not treated within the intent of the Directive. It was noted by the representative that it is the Department's own position that employees in a selection process are considered to be on government business and entitled to be reimbursed travel expenses under the Directive. However, the Department has stated that this only applies to employees who are participating in selection processes during their regularly scheduled working days. Employees who are invited to participate in a selection process on a day of rest are not considered to be on government travel status and hence not entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses. The Bargaining Agent representative argued that the Department cannot differentiate between employees attending the same selection process on a working day versus a day of rest. If employees attending the selection process on a working day are considered to be on government travel status, and entitled to the benefits under the Directive, employees on a day of rest should be entitled to the same provisions as "travel status" is not dependant on whether it is a working day or a day of rest for the employee.
Furthermore, the Bargaining Agent representative noted that a TBS Information Notice released in 2007 clearly states that "Internal candidates traveling to be interviewed in front of a selection board or to write an exam MUST always be reimbursed travel costs".
Finally, the Bargaining Agent representative stated that although one of the two selection posters clearly states that "no overtime or travel will be provided or reimbursed …," it is the view of the Bargaining Agent representative that the Department cannot simply eliminate its obligation to a right or an entitlement under a Directive. As employees attending a selection process are deemed to be on travel status in the purview of the Department, then they are entitled to the benefits under the Travel Directive. As such, the grievance should be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative noted that it is the view of the Department that the grievors were treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. As neither of the grievors obtained pre-authorization for government business travel, the Travel Directive cannot apply. Furthermore, when an employee applies for a position and then travels as part of the selection process, it is the Department's position that the employee is travelling on personal business and not on government business, unless they have been given the pre-authorization to do so. As such, the grievances should be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Travel Committee which concluded that given the circumstances of this case, and based on the Department's stated National Policy which articulates that employees are deemed to be on travel status when participating in selection processes, the Department cannot differentiate between how employees are treated based on whether the selection process is held on an employee's regularly scheduled work day versus a day of rest. As such, the grievors were not treated within the intent of the Directive and therefore, the grievances are upheld.