January 30, 2019
21.4.1115
Background
The grievor works for Department X; the permanent work location is City A, Province F. The grievor enrolled in two separate courses through the Canada School of Public Service in City B, Province G. The grievor requested and was granted leave the week between the two courses in order to travel in Province G.
The first training session in City B took place on January 22 and 23, 2015, while the second training session was from February 2 to 3, 2015. For the first course, the grievor flew to City B on January 21, 2015, and was entitled to lunch, dinner, incidentals and accommodation. The hotel did not provide breakfast. On January 24, 2015, the grievor travelled to City C, Province G and claimed no entitlements for meals, incidentals or hotel. The grievor was on leave from January 25 to January 31, 2015, with no entitlements.
The second course started early in the morning on February 2, 2015, therefore the grievor travelled from City C to City B on February 1, 2015. The grievor subsequently claimed and was reimbursed for meals and incidentals for February 1, 2015. The Department later determined the grievor was not entitled to the reimbursement and recovered $91.60 from the grievor.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving that management has incorrectly recovered funds for the grievor’s travel claim.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent contends that the Employer erred in recovering the full per diem, $91.60, for February 1, 2015. The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the grievor worked in City A, Province F and travelled on January 21, 2015 to City B, Province G on authorized travel for training related to the grievor’s employment. The grievor was on training on January 22 and January 23, 2015. From January 24 to 31, 2015 the grievor was on pre-approved vacation and remained in Province G. On February 1, 2015 the grievor returned to City B from the vacation destination and was in training on February 2 and 3, 2015. From February 4-6, 2015 the grievor continued pre-authorized vacation and returned to Province F on February 7, 2015.
The Bargaining Agent representative argued that management was fully aware of the grievor’s plans to travel and take vacation at a substantial cost savings to the employer. The representative further argued that the employer was aware that the grievor would be travelling from City C, the grievor’s vacation destination, back to City B to attend the second training course. The representative presented the email correspondence between the grievor and management regarding the conversation, showing that there was an agreement made between the grievor and management regarding the vacation time and the grievor’s subsequent training course.
The Bargaining Agent representative also contended that the employer contravened the guiding principles of the Directive as they recovered funds that were fair and reasonable for the grievor to be able to attend the required training, arguing that the Department breached the principles of trust and flexibility under the Directive.
Lastly, the Bargaining Agent representative stated that the employer unilaterally interpreted the Directive by developing an internal policy. It was noted by the representative that the Department had erred in relying on this document. The Bargaining Agent representative reiterated that the grievor requested to be reimbursed expenses that were directly related to attending the courses and should not be out of pocket in travelling to the course, specifically on the Sunday before the second training course, February 1, 2015. As such, the grievance should be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative noted three arguments to support the position that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Government Travel Directive. The Departmental representative argued that the grievor was not on travel status on Sunday, February 1, 2015. The representative provided two training requests that were submitted, which stated that the employee was required to attend training on the specified dates, however, the grievor was on travel status for two separate periods and stated that there was no requirement for the grievor to remain in City B between the two training sessions. It is the Departmental position that the grievor was on leave on February 1, 2015, rather than on travel status.
The representative further argued that the grievor was not subject to any provisions of the NJC Travel Directive during the period of leave which was at the end of the training session on January 23, 2015, until the start of the second training session on February 2, 2015. The expenses incurred on February 1, 2015, were the result of the grievor’s personal travel from City C, Province G to City B, Province G, and it is the Departmental position that reimbursement of these incidentals would open way to personal gain. The representative stated that while the employer allowed the grievor to take leave between the two training courses, it was not to be treated as if the employee would be on travel status during this time.
Finally, the Departmental representative contended that the employer was warranted in recovering the amounts which were paid to the employee in error. The representative stated that once the fundamental principles of the Directive were considered, the employer did not err in recovering the amounts which were paid to the employee in error. The Departmental representative concluded that the position of the employer is that the grievor, not being on travel status on February 1, 2015, was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive and as such, the grievance should be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded the grievor had not been treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. As the grievor was in travel status for at least a portion of the day in question, it is recommended the parties determine at what point in time travel status ought to have taken effect with the intent to align entitlements accordingly. As such the grievance is upheld in part.