December 15, 2016

21.4.1092

Background

The employee’s works for Department A.

On January 7, 2013 the employee began an assignment with Department B. The employee was in a pool of qualified candidates and was contacted by Department B for the assignment. Both parties agree that part of the terms and conditions of the assignment included Department B reimbursing the grievor for travel expenses (kilometres, meals and bridge tolls) while on assignment.

The grievor’s initial assignment was to end May 3, 2013 but was extended until March 31, 2014, and then until December 31, 2014 with the stipulation that all terms and conditions of the initial assignment would continue during the extension.

On September 17, 2014, the grievor was informed that effective October 6, 2014 travel expenses would no longer be paid as, for the remainder of the assignment, travel status would no longer apply. As such, the grievor was given the choice to continue on assignment without receiving reimbursement for travel expenses or return to the grievor’s substantive position at Department A.

Grievance

The employee is grieving the Employer’s decision to cease paying travel expenses (meals, bridge tolls and kilometres), effective October 6, 2014, under the Travel Directive. The grievor stated that travel expenses have been reimbursed since the commencement of the assignment.

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 noted that all government travel is, by definition, travel that is authorized by the Employer. In this case, as seen in the documentation surrounding this assignment, the grievor did have the Employer’s authorization to travel. The Bargaining Agent representative argued that at no time does the Directive provide discretion to the Employer to deny benefits under the Travel Directive to employees assigned to work outside of the 16 km headquarters zone. The decision to cease the payment of benefits stemmed from a regional decision aimed at deficit reduction. Aside from this financial decision, nothing regarding the grievor’s assignment changed after October 6, 2014.

The Bargaining Agent representative is of the opinion that providing the Employer this discretion would contravene the intent of the Directive and could lead to ongoing situations of Departments not authorizing travel status due to budgetary restraints. The Employer is asserting a new interpretation of the Directive where no new Directive interpretation exists. The bulletin issued by the Employer regarding its new procedure does not stem from the NJC, and as such, is not binding.

In addition, the Bargaining Agent representative argued that the Employer cannot, by virtue of individual agreement, require an employee to renounce his or her rights under the collective agreement and the Directive. The objective of the Travel Directive is to ensure a uniform treatment for all employees in the public service, and it cannot be accepted that an Employer may circumvent them as it sees fit.

Departmental Presentation

It is the Departmental representative’s position that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive.

The Departmental representative contended that in order to respond to the grievance in question it is not necessary to determine whether the Employer’s reasons for denying travel benefits were viable, but only whether, according to the spirit of the directive, the Employer was entitled to make this determination. He stated that it is recognized that in certain situations, such as in temporary assignments, the Employer has the authority to state in the assignment agreement that travel expenses will not be reimbursed.

The Departmental representative explained that on September 2, 2014, when advising the employee that starting October 6, travel status would no longer apply, management offered the grievor the opportunity to return to his/her regular position. That the employee chose to continue to the end of the assignment confirmed agreement to the new conditions of employment.

In its Purpose and Scope, the Directive highlights the need for departments to incur “reasonable expenses”. The Employer would be in contravention of this principle if it reimbursed travel expenses when the employee was deemed to not be entitled to them, as of October 6.

Executive Committee Decision

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that, based on the initial assignment agreement, and as the employee at no time indicated agreement with the new conditions of employment, the employee continued to be eligible to receive benefits under the Travel Directive. Given this, the Committee agreed that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive. As such, the grievance is upheld.