April 6, 2016
21.4.1093
Background
The employees all work for the same unit. Management informed the unit that effective ten (10) days from the date of notification, the work unit would be moving to another building located at the opposite end of the city. The employees were notified in writing of the workplace change five (5) days following the verbal announcement.
Grievance
The employees are grieving management's decision to deny reimbursement of travel expenses (kilometric rate and meals - lunches) from the time the workplace change took effect.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative contended that the grievors were not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive as, contrary to the Employer's prerogative, the grievors' new work location, located outside of the headquarters area, was a temporary work location. As such, it is the Bargaining Agent representative's opinion that the grievors were entitled to benefits under the Directive.
The Bargaining Agent representative argued that there are a number of reasons why this change in work location should be considered temporary. Firstly, it was common knowledge that the lease was set to expire and would not be renewed. As such, the grievors would be required to change work locations once again. Furthermore, the grievors were still listed in HRMIS as working at the initial location and their mailing address was never modified. In addition, the letter sent out from management informing employees of the workplace change, did not state that the change in work location was permanent. Additionally, management refers to the new location as a "swing space", which in accordance with all definitions found, means a temporary work location. Further still, employees who were assigned to the new location to assist with a backlog of files, did receive entitlements in accordance with the Travel Directive. Finally, the grievors returned to the initial work location, demonstrating, in the opinion of the Bargaining Agent representative, that the move was never intended to be a permanent move and hence the grievors were entitled to the provisions of the Travel Directive for the period of time they were working at the new location.
Departmental Presentation
It is the Departmental Representative's prerogative that the grievors were treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. The grievors were informed early in the year that they would be moving permanently as a result of their unit being amalgamated with another section. This change was also due to operational requirements to help address an increase in the number of files that needed to be processed in a tight timeline.
The Department contended that the grievors were not entitled to the provisions of the Travel Directive as they were relocated to a new permanent workplace and were informed as such. The Departmental representative stated that Section 1.9 of the Travel Directive addresses changes to a workplace, but only within the headquarters area which is not the case for these grievors, as the distance from the initial workplace to the new location is approximately 35 kilometres.
The Departmental Representative further noted that the fact that the employees performed the work of their regular position at the new work location and that all equipment and work was transferred there, in addition to the fact that no workspace remained at the initial work location for the grievors, demonstrated that indeed this change in work location was permanent. Furthermore, the Departmental representative contends that at no time did any of the messaging to the grievors state that the workplace change was temporary. Finally, the Departmental representative stated that despite knowing that the lease for the new work location had an end date and that the term "swing space" was used, at no time was this an admission that the change in work location was temporary. As such, the Department maintained that the grievors were treated within the intent of the Travel Directive and that no entitlements ought to be accorded under the Directive for a permanent change in work location.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee reviewed the report of the Government 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.