November 27, 2019
21.4.1120
Background
The grievor, an employee at Location A, was a member of the Emergency Response Team (ERT). ERT recertification takes place on an annual basis. In 2016, the recertification occurred over ten (10) days between September 19, 2016, and September 30, 2016, inclusive. The training facility was located more than 16 kms from the grievor’s assigned workplace.
The Employer noted that Location A had an unwritten agreement that they would pay the travel claims of four (4) employees so that they may use their Private Motor Vehicle (PMV) to travel to the training for each of the days in question. The ERT captain would be responsible for determining which four (4) members would be compensated for mileage. Departmental vans were made available to transport the remaining team members from the workplace to the training facility. For each of the days in question, the grievor drove their PMV to the training facility.
On October 11, 2016, following the training, the grievor submitted a travel request for the use of the grievor’s PMV, amounting to $319.06. On October 25, 2016, the travel claim was declined.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving management’s decision to deny reimbursement for mileage between the dates of September 19 and September 30, 2016, when the grievor was off site for ERT annual recertification.
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 location of the training was approximately 40 kms from Location A. The ERT captain verbally confirmed with the Bargaining Agent representative that there was indeed an informal agreement in place to allow all members of the ERT to use their private motor vehicle (PMV) to reach the training facility. The rationale provided was that if those employees that live in close proximity to the training facility first had to report to Location A, training time would be lost and the members of the ERT participating in the training would not reach enough training hours to qualify for recertification. The Bargaining Agent representative noted that this arrangement also ensured that the Department did not incur overtime costs as a result of travelling to and from the training facility.
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the ERT captain indicated that two departmental vans were indeed provided for training purposes, but that those vans were filled with equipment to be used during the training sessions. As such, there was only enough room in the said departmental vans for the drivers.
Given this scenario, and the fact that this informal agreement had been in place since at least 2010, the Bargaining Agent representative argued that it is reasonable for those employees required to travel by PMV to the training facility to be reimbursed the kilometric rate. As such, the Bargaining Agent representative is of the opinion that the grievance should be upheld.
A number of questions of clarification were raised by the Committee including: whether there was an expectation for car-pooling, whether four (4) employees had indeed been pre-authorized to travel by PMV, and whether there was anything in writing to confirm the informal agreement that had been put into place. The Bargaining Agent representative could not confirm answers to any of these questions.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative argued that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive. The Departmental representative stated that management already had a system in place where departmental vans are made available so that the ERT travel together to the training location. Given that the grievor elected to transport themself in their own vehicle, without prior authorization, the kilometric rate was denied.
The Departmental representative relied on subsection 1.1.2 of the Directive which makes reference to the requirement for prior authorization. The Departmental representative noted that the grievor’s vehicle was not identified in advance for use, nor did they ask the ERT captain for approval. Although subsection 1.1.2 of the Directive states that post authorization can be approved by the Employer in special circumstances, the Departmental representative indicated that information was not provided that would warrant that this situation be deemed a special circumstance. The Departmental representative stated that the request for reimbursement for travel expenses after they had been incurred could be construed as a means of seeking personal gain. As such, the Departmental representative is of the opinion that the grievance should be denied.
The Committee posed a number of questions of clarification including: whether the four (4) PMVs pre-approved were meant for car-pooling, whether pre-approval was actually obtained for four (4) PMVs – or for any PMVs for that matter, whether the grievor requested to use their PMV prior to the commencement of the training, whether any other travel claims were submitted by other participants of the training after the fact and whether the grievor car-pooled anyone when using the grievor’s PMV. The Employer representative was unable to confirm answers to any of the questions posed.
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 the Employer did provide Crown-owned vehicles as a means of transportation to and from the training facility. The grievor made a personal choice to use their private motor vehicle (PMV) rather than the transportation provided by the Employer. Furthermore, the grievor did not obtain pre-authorization to use their PMV in accordance with subsection 1.1.2 of the Directive. As such, the grievance is denied.