June 19, 2019
21.4.1113
Background
The grievor was hired in November 2011. In mid-January 2012, the grievor received a verbal offer of employment to work at Location A in City F, Province X. The grievor began work on January 30, 2012, but due to operational issues at Location A, the grievor never commenced working at that location, but rather, was immediately assigned to Location B, also in City F. Given this, the grievor effectively began the assignment on the start date at Location A. It is to be noted that the distance between the two locations is 1.7 km.
The assignment was initially scheduled to end on June 30, 2012; however, it was subsequently extended until December 31, 2012. The assignment agreements do not indicate if the grievor was subject to travel entitlements. No travel claim was submitted with respect to the assignment period.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving that their permanent place of work is Location A and they were temporarily assigned to Location B starting January 30, 2012. The Employer did not pay the grievor the amounts provided under the Travel Directive resulting from the temporary assignment.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative is of the opinion that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive and as such, contended that in accordance with subsection 3.1.11 of the Directive, and in keeping with the principles of trust, flexibility, respect and valuing people, the grievor ought to be reimbursed, in a reasonable manner, for travel between home and the temporary workplace. The Bargaining Agent representative noted that during the grievor’s assignment, they were in a precarious situation given that the Employer did not provide the grievor with updates with respect to when they would be returning to the designated work location (Location A) and that the grievor was informed during the course of the assignment that even the temporary work location would eventually close.
The grievor travelled, on average, approximately 120 kilometres round trip from home to the temporary work location every day. Had the grievor been able to seek confirmation that the permanent position would be at the designated work location (Location A), then the grievor could have moved closer to work to avoid the lengthy commute. However, given that the grievor was temporarily assigned to Location B, the grievor was reluctant to permanently relocate closer to Location B as they did not have confirmation as to where the permanent work location would be following the end of the assignment.
Had the grievor relocated within the designated work location’s headquarters area, the maximum amount of travel required on any given day would be 32 kilometres (16 kilometres each way). As such, the Bargaining Agent representative put forward the following calculation as being fair and reasonable with respect to reimbursement: 120 kilometres (the average number of kilometres the grievor drives in a day as a result of not relocating) – 32 kilometres (the maximum number of kilometres needed to commute to work if the grievor had relocated within the headquarters area) = 88 kilometres per day.
That said, the Bargaining Agent representative argued that if the Committee is not in agreement with the above rationale, then at the very least, the grievor is entitled to be reimbursed in accordance with subsections 1.9.2 and 1.9.3 of the Directive given that the grievor was not notified, in writing, thirty (30) calendar days in advance of the change in workplace. The grievor’s letter of offer clearly stated that the grievor’s permanent workplace is Location A and the assignment agreement is also clear in that Location B is a temporary workplace. As such, the Bargaining Agent representative contends that the grievor is entitled to the kilometric rate for the distance between the home and the temporary workplace, or between the permanent workplace and the temporary workplace, whichever is less. It was noted by the Bargaining Agent representative that in this case, the shortest distance would be between the permanent workplace and the temporary workplace, approximately 2 kilometres each way.
The Bargaining Agent representative further noted that the grievor’s situation is not an isolated case, and in other identical instances, employees were entitled to the provisions of the Travel Directive.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative was in agreement with the facts of the case as presented, but noted that the case referred to by the Bargaining Agent representative as precedent contained a significant difference from the grievance at hand. In the precedent cases referred to, 21.4.1040 and 21.4.1041, the employees were on assignment from Location A due to operational issues effective the same date as the grievor’s assignment. In those cases, it was agreed by the Executive Committee that the grievors were entitled to certain provisions of the Travel Directive given that the grievors were on travel status outside of their headquarters area. However, in the present grievance, the grievor was not outside of the headquarters area, and hence, the Departmental representative argued that the grievor should not be treated in the same manner as the grievors in 21.4.1040 and 21.4.1041.
The Departmental representative further contended that the grievor ought not to be entitled to the provisions of 1.9.2 and 1.9.3 of the Directive as the grievor was informed well in advance of the location of the assignment. The September 22, 2011 minutes from a Labour-Management meeting clearly state that recruits will be deployed temporarily to Location B and the Departmental representative noted that this plan was conveyed to both the recruits and to those responsible for training them. Furthermore, the Departmental representative noted that in December 2011, the list of assignment locations for all new employees was made available during the training program. The Departmental representative highlighted the fact that the Directive is not specific with respect to what form the advance notification should take, other than the fact that it must be in writing. In the case of the grievor, the Departmental representative contended that the minutes from the Labour-Management meeting and the list of new employees and their assigned locations were considered written notification and accessible to all. In light of the above, the Departmental representative concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive and as such, recommended that the grievance be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that given there was clear recognition from the Department that the permanent workplace was Location A and the temporary workplace was Location B, the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. The grievor ought to have been notified, in writing, 30 calendar days in advance of the change in workplace, in accordance with subsection 1.9.2 of the Directive. It was noted that the documents presented by the Department are not deemed to be considered written notification. Consequently, the grievance is upheld.