January 30, 2019
21.4.1117
Background
The grievor, based in City A, Province X, attended a training course in City B from March 14 to April 5, 2007. Prior to attending the course the grievor was provided with a “Pre-course Information Guide” which indicated breakfast would be provided by the hotel and some lunches and dinners would also be provided at the training facility. It was noted that participants could purchase breakfast in lieu of the meal provided by the hotel and a reimbursement would be issued upon presentation of receipts. The grievor also received a $3,300.00 travel advance.
Upon the grievor’s return, the grievor submitted two travel claims, one for each fiscal year covered, which included 23 breakfast, lunch and dinner allowances as well as daily incidentals. The grievor claims to have submitted receipts to the grievor’s unit’s administrative assistant for processing along with the claim. There is disagreement amongst the parties as to whether receipts were provided and, if yes, what became of them. The claims totalling $4,292.85 were processed and a payment of $992.85 was issued to the grievor. This represented the difference between the amount claimed and the travel advance. Finance subsequently audited the travel claims and disallowed the breakfast claims ($294.50) as no receipts were provided. 11 Lunch claims were also disallowed ($134.15) as meals were provided on these occasions. As a result, it was determined the grievor received an overpayment of $428.65.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving management’s violation of the Travel Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor submitted two travel claims for the grievor’s 23 day trip on April 24, 2007, as the period of time spanned over two fiscal years. The claims included 23 breakfasts, lunch and dinner allowances, as well as daily incidentals. On April 26, 2007 the claims were processed for payment. On the same date, the grievor’s program coordinator sent an email to the grievor indicating that a number of the lunches were provided as part of the training program and, as outlined in the pre-course information guide, the Department would not accept the breakfast expenses without receipts. As such, the grievor was responsible to repay the overpayment.
The Department received a cheque from the grievor for a portion of the amount, $134.15, the amount for the lunches in question, on September 20, 2007. The Bargaining Agent representative attested that the grievor did not submit the outstanding amount of the overpayment as the grievor was adamant that receipts were submitted to the administrative assistant responsible for completing the travel claim. Once the payment was issued, the grievor destroyed the receipts.
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that on October 15, 2007 the grievor requested to submit a lost receipt declaration to cover the breakfast allowances or file a grievance. The Department denied the request to submit a declaration given that the pre-course material clearly stated receipts were required, the grievor’s failure to confirm this before submitting a travel claim, and the grievor’s culpability in admitting claiming the lunch allowances contrary to policy. Given this, the Department returned the cheque to the grievor and garnished the grievor’s wages for the full amount of the overpayment.
The Bargaining Agent representative contends that the crux of the grievance in question is not with respect to money owed, but rather the principle of the fact that the grievor is adamant that receipts were submitted for out of pocket expenses and is being penalized for the grievor’s culpability with respect to the lunches. The grievor should have been allowed to submit a lost receipt declaration. As such, the representative requested that the grievance be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative stated that the grievor was well informed in advance of travel that supplemental breakfast expenses required the submission of receipts in order to receive reimbursement.
The administrative assistant in question stated that an employee would not normally be required to submit receipts for meals unless a traveller received direction contrary to subsection 3.3.9 of the Travel Directive. The Departmental representative noted that the administrative assistant was of the opinion that it should be the traveller’s responsibility to communicate this information so that the administrative assistant can complete the travel claim, otherwise the administrative assistant would not have known to accept the receipts and would have claimed all meals in accordance with Appendix C of the Directive.
The Employer representative contended that there is a possibility that the grievor provided the receipts, but did not advise the administrative assistant of their purpose and as such, the claim was completed to include all allowances for the 23 days in question. The Employer representative further noted that the grievor, by the grievor’s own submission, stated that the grievor was responsible for destroying the receipts sometime after June 2007 when the grievor was first made aware of the overpayment.
The Employer representative argues that the grievor was aware in June 2007 that his breakfast claims were disallowed. It was incumbent on the grievor to ensure that the necessary criteria were met in order to receive the reimbursement for the grievor’s alleged out of pocket expenses. Instead, the grievor signed off on inaccurate travel claim forms; it was the grievor’s responsibility to verify what was being claimed was correct. Furthermore the grievor did not submit a self-declaration. As such, it is the prerogative of the Employer representative that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive and as such, the grievance ought to be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. It was noted that meals were provided at the training facility and that per subsection 3.3.9, it is the responsibility of the traveler to retain receipts. The grievance is therefore denied.