June 19, 2019
21.4.1121
Background
The grievor, an employee of Department X, whose headquarters is located in City A, was specifically selected by Department X to work on a project in City B, Province G in 2014.
From February 10, 2014 through to March 31, 2014, the grievor alternatively worked one week at headquarters in City A followed by one week in City B, Province G on the project. The grievor’s travel expenses were reimbursed for this time period.
From April 1, 2014 to July 31, 2014 the grievor was placed on an assignment agreement. During this time, the grievor did not receive reimbursement for travel expenses, but was told that reimbursement would come at a later date as the Department was required to abide by Treasury Board policy. The grievor returned to their substantive position in City A as of August 1, 2014. The grievor continued to check in with management in City B regularly from September 2014 through to April 2016 with respect to the reimbursement of expenses. On April 4, 2016 the grievor was informed by management in City B that the grievor would not be reimbursed for travel expenses, amounting to $16,749.00, during the time period in question as the grievor’s headquarters was deemed, for that period in time, to be City B.
In May 2017, the grievor raised the issue with the manager in City A. The manager contacted City B and was informed by management that given that there was no written document indicating pre-approval of the travel expenses, nothing could be done.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving management’s decision to retroactively deny travel benefits and recoup money already paid under the National Joint Council Directive in error and against the purpose and intent of the Travel Directive.
*It should be noted that following the second level reply, management agreed that the grievor was indeed on travel status during the period of time in question, and agreed to compensate the grievor for all travel expenses. As such, the grievor has been reimbursed $13,798.09. The difference between the amount reimbursed and the outstanding amount ($16,749.00 – 13,798.09 = $2,950.91) is a result of a difference in opinion with respect to how meals and the incidental expense allowance ought to be calculated.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative is of the opinion that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. The Bargaining Agent representative noted that following the second level grievance hearing, the Employer upheld the grievance in part. The outstanding amount, $2,950.91, represents the difference in how meals and the incidental expense allowance are calculated. The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the language of the Directive states that: “Seventy-five percent (75%) of the meal and incidental allowances shall be paid starting on the thirty first consecutive calendar day…. of travel status while at the same location when corporate residences and/or apartment hotels are available to a traveller in the area surrounding the workplace, or the traveller chooses to stay in private accommodation”.
The Bargaining Agent representative argued that the clock should start ticking effective April 1, 2014, the date on which the grievor began his four (4) month assignment. That said, given that the Employer elected not to compensate the grievor for meals, incidentals and accommodations, in City B, when the grievor returned to City B for holidays, weekends and statutory holidays, a demonstration in the mind of the Bargaining Agent representative that the Employer did not consider the grievor to be on travel status during those periods of time, the clock ought to restart each time the grievor returned to Montreal. As such, at no point in time during the assignment was the grievor on travel status for more than thirty (30) consecutive days. Given this, the Bargaining Agent representative is of the opinion that the grievor should be in receipt of 100% of the meal and incidental expense allowance for the entire duration of the grievor’s assignment, April 1st – July 31, 2014. As such, the Bargaining Agent representative requests that the grievance be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative noted that the crux of the grievance lies with respect to the outstanding amount which the Employer did not compensate the grievor for with respect to meals and incidentals. The Departmental representative noted that Appendix C of the Directives states: “Seventy-five percent (75%) of the meal and incidental allowances shall be paid starting on the thirty first consecutive calendar day … of travel status while at the same location when corporate residences and or apartment hotels are available to a traveller in the area surrounding the workplace, or the traveller chooses to stay in private accommodation”.
The Departmental representative noted that the assignment period ran from April 1, 2014 to July 31, 2014. That said, as the grievor was on holidays from April 1 – 8, 2014, the 30 consecutive days where the employee received 100% of the meal allowance and incidentals did not begin until April 9, 2014. As such, the grievor received 100% of the allowances in question from April 9 – May 8, 2014. From May 9, 2014 to July 31, 2014 the grievor was in receipt of 75% of the meal and incidental allowances.
The Departmental representative argued that the grievor was in receipt of the provisions of subsection 3.3.12 Weekend travel home when returning to City A for holidays, weekends, etc. As such, the grievor was correctly compensated for the return trips to City A. Furthermore, the Departmental representative noted that the Directive clearly states that weekend travel home does not constitute a break in continuous travel as the grievor was always returning to the same work location, City B.
3.3.12 Weekend travel home
The use of the weekend travel home provisions or its alternative does not constitute a break in continuous travel at the same location.
Given that the Employer is of the opinion that weekend travel home does not constitute a break in continuous travel, the Departmental representative noted that in order to abide by the intent of the Directive, the grievor could only be compensated at 75% of the meal and incidental allowance from May 9, 2014 – July 31, 2014. As such, the Employer requests that the grievance be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. The grievance is therefore denied.
It was noted the period of travel was correctly deemed to begin on April 9, 2014, and pursuant to subsection 3.3.12 of the Directive, weekend travel home does not constitute a break in continuous travel at the same location; however, given the calculations presented, it is recommended that the claim in question be audited.