April 26, 2017
27.4.120
Background
The grievor works at Department A in City A, an isolated post as listed in Appendix A of the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive (IPGHD).
Upon the death of the grievor’s mother, the grievor was granted bereavement leave from June 1 to 7, 2015. On June 4, the grievor and spouse travelled by plane from City A to City B and then by car to City C for the funeral. On June 7, 2015, the employee and spouse made the return trip to City A.
As outlined in Section 3.3 of the IPGHD, when employees are granted leave with pay for bereavement in the immediate family and they travel from their headquarters to another location and back, the employee is entitled to a limited reimbursement of travel expenses. As such, the employee submitted an expense claim under the IPGHD that included expenses for both the grievor and spouse. The total amount submitted in the original expense claim was $2,470.74, of which $1,284.07 are expenses incurred by the grievor’s spouse.
The grievor was subsequently informed that the bereavement travel expenses for the grievor’s spouse would not be reimbursed. The Department argued that regardless of the guardianship status of the grievor’s mother, the mother does not meet the definition of “legal ward” under the Directive. It was argued that this term is used only for relationships where the employee and spouse are viewed as “parents”. The term “ward” is defined in the definition of “dependant” in the IPGHD: a child who is unmarried, for whom the employee does not claim a tax credit under the Income Tax Act, and is not yet 24 years of age in full time attendance at an educational institution.
The grievor is grieving management’s decision to deny travel expenses for the grievor’s spouse, stating that as the grievor had been awarded legal guardianship of the grievor’s mother, the grievor’s mother is the grievor’s ward, and as such, the grievor’s spouse’s travel expenses are payable in accordance with paragraph 3.3.3 a. of the IPGHD.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the denial of travel and transportation expenses in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative contended that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the IPGHD Directive.
The IPGH Directive states in subsection 3.3.1 “When employees are granted leave with pay for a bereavement in the immediate family and they travel from their headquarters to another location and back, the employer shall reimburse the lesser of 1,2, or three”. In paragraph 3.3.3 a. of the IPGHD “The benefits provided by this section shall be extended to “The employee or the employee’s spouse or common-law partner, with respect to the death of other members of the employee’s immediate family”. Finally, under the IPGD definition of immediate family “for employee, means father, mother, mother in law, father in law”.
Also, in subsection 3.3.3, the term “legal ward” appears which is interpreted by the Bargaining Agent side as a relationship that can include a mother. The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the Directive does not contain any indication that there must be cohabitation with the “legal ward” to have access to the bereavement travel expense.
Based on the above, the Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the intent of the Directive is not to provide an extra gain to employees in isolated post, but to give the same opportunity for an employee and spouse to attend funeral as it would be normally accessible for an employee and spouse not located in an isolated post.
Departmental Presentation
The Employer’s position is that the employee’s mother cannot be considered a legal ward since paragraph 3.3.3 (1) refers to relationships where the employee and spouse are viewed as parents to the legal ward since article 3.3.3 (1) refers to relationships where the employee and spouse are viewed as parents to the legal ward only. The IPGHD’s intent for article 3.3.3 (1) is in relation to a child as per all examples provided (child, step-child, adopted child). This is supported by TBS interpretation which states that article 3.3.3 (1) is referring to relationships where the employee and spouse are viewed as “parents” to the legal ward.
Furthermore, the IPGHD defines dependant where legal ward is intentionally limited a biological child, stepchild, adopted child, or legal ward who must also meet all of the eligibility criteria identified (1. Who is unmarried, 2. For whom the employee does not claim a tax credit under the Income Tax Act and 3. Who is not yet 24 years of age in full time attendance at an education institution). Also, the dependant needs to reside with the employee at the employee’s headquarters residence. Unfortunately, the mother does not meet these eligibility criteria. The employee’s mother does not meet the definition of dependant as defined in the IPGHD, since; she does not reside with the employee at the employee’s headquarters residence, is over 24 years of age and is not in full-time attendance at a recognized education institution.
Based on what was presented, the Department’s position is that, in accordance with the spirit of the Directive, “legal ward” would not include an elderly parent or other relative, regardless of the guardianship or custodial responsibilities bestowed on the employee by Letters of Guardianship or other court issued documents. The Employer is of the opinion that the grievor was treated within the intent of the IPGHD Directive, the Directive was applied as intended and respectfully asks that the grievance be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Committee which concluded that the Directive is referring to “legal ward” in the context of a child and does not include an elderly parent or other relative. Therefore, the grievor’s mother does not meet the definition of a “legal ward” under the Directive. Subsection 3.3.3 is clear that when the death is of an immediate family member other than a biological child, stepchild, adopted child or legal ward, travel expenses will be reimbursed for the employee or the employee’s spouse, but not both. For this reason, it was agreed that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive. As such, the grievance is denied.