October 11, 2018
21.4.1104
Background
The grievor is a day worker whose permanent work location is City A, Province Y. The grievor is a member of the Flexible Response Team. Since the grievor is required to travel on a regular basis to perform the duties of the position, the grievor is covered by a blanket travel authority. On December 3, 2013, during the grievor’s regular hours of work, the grievor travelled by car from the grievor’s workplace to City B and City C, Province Y on authorized government business. The grievor remained in City B overnight and returned to the grievor’s workplace on December 4, 2013, arriving at 10:30 a.m.
The grievor later submitted a travel claim, which the Department approved with the exception of the lunch meal allowance on December 4, 2013. The grievor subsequently grieved this decision.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the decision to deny the grievor’s claim for the lunch meal allowance on December 4, 2013. The grievor submits the Employer’s decision violates the purpose, scope, and spirit of the Travel Directive. It is also inconsistent with the six principles underlying the Directive, which are trust, flexibility, respect, valuing people, transparency, and modern travel practices. The Directive mentions in particular that it should be applied to, but not limited to, trip costs, duration, convenience, safety, and practicality. It also stresses that it is important to consider the employee’s personal situation when applying the Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative contended that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive as the Employer’s decision not to reimburse the lunch is inconsistent with the following principles of the National Joint Council Travel Directive: trust, flexibility and respect.
The morning of December 4, 2013, while the grievor was still in travel status, his immediate superior directed the grievor to return to the workplace to work the grievor’s shift in City A. The grievor and the grievor’s colleague left City B around 9:00 a.m. and arrived at the workplace around 10:30 a.m. Not having a lunch at work that day since the grievor had not anticipated being at the workplace, and considering the instructions received from the Employer before departure on the trip as well as the fact that the grievor woke up that morning in a hotel room where it was impossible to keep or make food, the grievor asked for a lunch on the expense claim. It is this meal, the lunch that the Employer refuses to reimburse the grievor.
In April 2013, the Employer grappled with the same situation. Several superintendents voiced their opinion that the employees should be reimbursed the meal when they were required to travel back directly to their workplace to work their shift from the location outside their Headquarters after an overnight stay. The Employer was then aware of the issue and expressed the need for a change.
The Bargaining Agent’s position is that the Employer’s refusal to pay for a lunch when an employee is no longer in travel status is not a violation of the Directive in normal circumstances. However, these are not normal circumstances. The Employer expected the grievor to return to the regular workplace to work the grievor’s shift even though the time of arrival would be before the grievor’s meal period. Yet the Employer did not advise the grievor to travel home first to prepare for the shift. Had the grievor returned from an overnight travel on the grievor’s day of rest there would have been no expectation that the Employer reimburse the meal. However, in this situation, when considering the fact that the grievor was required to report directly to work after an overnight travel, a trip without a clear return to work date and time, it is an unusual circumstance and because of that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive.
According to the Bargaining Agent representative, reasonableness must be considered. A reasonable person, having read the Principles of the Directive, and the pillars by which the Directive was created, would expect the Employer to reimburse the meal allowance in these unusual circumstances. The grievor had no option for a lunch since the expected return from the overnight travel was a moving target. The grievor asked that the Employer demonstrate flexibility and respect, and that the application of the Directive should focus on reasonable considerations.
The Bargaining Agent is of the opinion that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive.
Departmental Presentation
According to the Department, the Directive’s purpose states that it is “to ensure fair treatment of employees required to travel on government business consistent with the principles above. The provisions contained in this Directive are mandatory and provide for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses necessarily incurred while travelling on government business and to ensure employees are not out of pocket. These provisions do not constitute income or other compensation that would open the way for personal gain.”
The Departmental representative’s position is primarily that the grievor was not on government travel during the period covering the lunch on December 4, 2013. The grievor ceased to be on travel status, as defined in the Directive, the moment the grievor returned to the headquarters area at 10:30 a.m. on December 4, 2013.
The Departmental representative referred to subsection 3.3.9 of the Travel Directive which indicated that the traveller shall be paid the meal allowance while on travel status. The Travel Directive does not substantively provide for the reimbursement of meals contiguous to a period of government travel. The dictionary defines a lunch as “usually a light meal, one taken in the middle of the day”. Based on the grievor’s work schedule for the day in question, the middle of his work day would have been close to the noon hour (12:00 p.m.). It is the Employer’s position that even the Directive’s principles and a broader reading of the overall Directive do not allow for the reimbursement of the said meal allowance in the grievor’s case. Also, there is no evidence supported by receipts of expenses incurred or even of a discussion having taken place with regard to what arrangement he had to make that day. Additionally, no evidence or discussion with management has been presented to suggest that he had a special dietary need or accommodation reason that requires him to pack his lunch from home. If the grievor was concerned with the management of his time and work schedule, this could have been discussed with management.
In addition, the Employer representative argued that it is natural to expect that travelling on government business will disrupt an employee’s regular routines overall and in particular in this case with respect to meals. There is an onus on employees to be prepared and to raise any questions they may have regarding travel situations that may affect their personal needs. The grievor frequently travels on government business and could have anticipated a situation where the grievor would not have a pre-packaged lunch upon arrival at the workplace.
All employees in the Department in question have access to an intranet tool which contains information guiding government travel. There again it was mentioned that an employee can claim a meal if he/she is on travel status at the time at which the meal would usually be taken or at the time at which it would be reasonable to have a meal. The intranet tool information validated by the Department’s finance team indicated that the grievor would have been aware that only an arrival time after 1:00 p.m., would make him eligible for the reimbursement of the lunch allowance while on travel status.
The Employer is of the opinion that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive.
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.