November 7, 2018
21.4.1112
Background
The grievor is an employee of Department A occupying an indeterminate position at Location G, City M, Province T. On the weekend of April 16-17, 2016, the staff of Location G was advised by management to report on Monday, April 18, 2016, to an alternate temporary work location (Location H, City M, Province T) during the closure of the Location G due to the occupation of the offices by protesters.
Prior to these events, the grievor drove to the permanent place of work on a daily basis and utilized free street parking. The two locations are within walking distance, approximately 750 m (0.750 km). During the grievance procedure, the Employer determined the grievor to be eligible for a reimbursement of the kilometric rate for the period the grievor reported to the temporary workplace.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the Employer’s failure and refusal to reimburse travel expenses on the basis that it contravenes the National Joint Council Travel Directive, also any and all other policies, directives, laws, rules, practices, agreements or documents which may apply in the circumstances.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor received one day’s notice of the temporary change in work location rather than the 30 days required by the Travel Directive. As such, the provisions of section 1.9 of the Travel Directive apply. The representative noted that subsection 1.9.2 specifically states “…the provisions of this directive shall apply unless the employee is notified, in writing, 30 calendar days in advance of the change in workplace.” Consequently, the representative submitted that all relevant sections of the Travel Directive ought to apply to the grievor’s situation and not solely section 1.9.
It was noted that at the time the grievor was advised of the workplace change the grievor was not provided with any information with respect to parking or transportation. Likewise, information to this effect was not offered after the workplace change. The grievor inquired as to employees’ eligibility for reimbursement of the kilometric rate and parking costs in accordance with the Travel Directive during a staff meeting; however, management advised it was not prepared to discuss the issue at that time. The representative indicated that management did not follow up with the grievor on the issue thereafter.
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that prior to the events giving rise to the grievance the grievor utilized free two hour street parking. The grievor parked within a seven minute walk of the permanent work location and moved the car during breaks. As a result of the change in work location, the grievor was now a 17-minute walk from the usual parking location making it impossible for the grievor to move the car during 15 minutes breaks and 30 minute lunch period. As such the change in workplace had a material impact on the grievor’s commuting pattern. Furthermore, as the grievor could no longer access this free parking, the grievor was out of pocket $416.00 for the 79-day period during which the grievor reported for duty at the temporary work location.
The Bargaining Agent representative also addressed the Employer’s contention that the grievor failed to obtain authorization prior to incurring travel costs by noting that with one day’s notice of the workplace change the grievor had no opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the representative argued that responsibilities under the Travel Directive are shared and the Employer failed to fulfil its obligations towards the grievor.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted the Employer had an onus to provide transportation or to absorb additional costs arising from this situation. It is unfair and inequitable to place the grievor in a situation where the grievor is out of pocket. As such, the representative requested the grievance be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that the events that led to the change in work location were exceptional and created an emergency situation. Consequently, the Employer could not provide 30 days’ notice. It was noted that the Employer was nonetheless able to secure an alternate work location only 750 m or 10 minutes on foot from the permanent work location. Given the minimal distance between the two locations, the change cannot be considered a disruption to the grievor’s commuting pattern.
The Departmental representative submitted the grievor failed to fulfil their responsibilities under the Travel Directive and is therefore precluded from receiving a reimbursement. The representative noted that subsection 1.1.2 of the Travel Directive requires that all travel be authorized in advance; however, the grievor did not seek prior approval of parking expenses.
It was also suggested the grievor did not engage in meaningful consultation with management on the issue. The Departmental representative indicated there was no evidence to demonstrate the grievor had engaged in a discussion regarding parking. With respect to the meeting in which the grievor is alleged to have addressed the question, it was noted that the meeting in question took place a month and a half after the grievor began using paid parking. The Employer therefore does not consider this to be a meaningful discussion.
Finally, the Departmental representative indicated the payment of parking costs would lead to personal gain. It was explained that as the grievor does not normally pay for parking, for the Employer to do so would create a personal benefit that would not otherwise exist. Likewise, by paying for parking, the grievor obtained the advantage of a guaranteed parking spot something they would not otherwise have had. The representative argued that the reimbursement of parking expenses would be contrary to the intent of the Directive.
The Employer is therefore of the opinion that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive.
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 there was a temporary change in workplace within the headquarters area, section 1.9 of the Directive applies. As such the grievance is upheld.