April 26, 2017
21.4.1082
Background
The employee works for Department A located in City A. On June 17, 2013, the grievor began an assignment in City B. While on this assignment, the grievor applied and was the successful candidate for a different acting assignment. On January 6, 2014 the employee commenced the new acting assignment, outside the headquarters area, in City C.
The employee is grieving the Department’s decision to deny travel expenses (mileage) while on assignment. The Department stated that the grievor’s assignment agreement clearly indicated that “Commuting costs, if any, are to be paid by the home organization”. The grievor further noted that this assignment was not voluntary, but as a result of a workplace accommodation.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the Employer’s decision to deny a request to be reimbursed for travel expenses in accordance with the Collective Agreement and the applicable NJC directives.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the assignment in City B beginning in June 2013 was an accommodation assignment. During this assignment, the grievor received an email from Staffing suggesting that the grievor apply to an advertisement for a position, stating that the grievor was receiving the email because the grievor was either a Priority or was on the Regional Return-to-Work Program. The grievor applied and was deemed qualified. The position was then changed from an indeterminate to an acting assignment. The position was located in City C, approximately 86 km round-trip beyond the grievor’s substantive position. As a result, from January to August 2014 the grievor was on a temporary acting assignment for the Department in City C. The grievor accepted this position to assist with the grievor’s accommodation needs.
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that while the grievor was on an accommodation assignment to City B, the grievor received mileage and meals since the distance to City B was more than the distance to the home unit. The Bargaining Agent representative contended that this is the same type of situation, with the same type of accommodation necessary for the grievor’s disability, and supported by the Staffing Alert the grievor received suggesting that the grievor apply for the position in City C. The grievor states that when advised verbally by the Employer that it would not be reimbursing travel expenses, the grievor had neither received nor signed any assignment agreement, nor had a travel reimbursement request been submitted.
The Assignment/Secondment Form indicates that Commuting Assistance would be provided. The grievor interpreted this to mean that the home organization, in this case, in City A, would be paying the cost of her commute from City D, where the grievor lived, to City C, the location of the new assignment. As a result, the grievor accepted the acting assignment, believing that travel and commuting expenses would be reimbursed. The Bargaining Agent representative argues that the Employer cannot simply decide to not pay out previously agreed to expenses.
The Bargaining Agent representative requests that the Executive Committee grant this grievance and instruct the Employer to reimburse the grievor with all travel expenses to which the grievor is entitled, under the related NJC Directives.
Departmental Presentation
It is the Departmental representative’s position that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive.
The Departmental representative also indicated that during the period of June 17, 2013 to December 31, 2013, the grievor was on a return to work plan and accommodated on an assignment basis in a position in City B. For the duration of this assignment, the grievor received travel assistance as well as a top-off to the applicable rate of pay.
The Departmental representative indicated that the grievor voluntarily participated in a competitive selection process for a position located in City C. The grievor was successful and was subsequently offered an assignment to the position. On November 27, 2013, the grievor and the grievor’s union representative were advised that a travel allowance would not be provided during the assignment to City C. On or about December 17, 2013, management confirmed to the grievor’s union representative that the grievor would not be entitled to travel expenses during the above-noted assignment at City C. The assignment agreement was signed on December 31, 2013.
In January 2014, the grievor forwarded a travel allowance request for approval in the amount of $10,000 relating to the grievor’s commuting costs for the period while on assignment at City C. The request was denied on or around January 29, 2014.
The Departmental representative contended that the grievor’s assignment to the position in City C did not fall under the NJC Travel Directive as it was a voluntary assignment and therefore not employer-directed. The grievor was identified to have met the qualifications for the position as part of the staffing process and not under the duty to accommodate/return to work process. As such, the assignment was not considered to be an accommodation for employment, and subsequently there was no entitlement to travel. When an employee is on an assignment their new workplace becomes their headquarters. As per the NJC Travel Directive, employees are not on travel status while travelling to the workplace. In addition, travel status must be authorized in advance by the designated manager, which was not the case in this instance, as the grievor was advised by management that the grievor would not be entitled to travel expenses. The Employer representative explained that the rationale for checking the box relevant to commuting assistance on the travel agreement form was to provide for any circumstances in which commuting assistance may be required during the assignment, as determined by the employer.
The Departmental representative further noted that the grievor’s workplace was located in an urban area and did not meet the criteria as outlined in the Commuting Assistance Directive.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that as the workplace in question was located in City C, this is not an instance where the Commuting Assistance Directive would apply. The Executive Committee also agreed that, based on the information presented at the hearing, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Travel Directive would apply in this case. As such, the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directives and therefore, the grievance is denied.