November 18, 2020
21.4.1125
Background
The grievor, working for Department X, was required to supervise a seal hunt at Location A on Sunday, January 27, 2019. Travel for the work activity was scheduled under a Blanket Travel Authority. The grievor’s scheduled shift was from 7:00-15:00 where the grievor and a colleague were flown to Location A, which was outside of headquarters area. By 15:00, the grievor was recognized to be working overtime and at approximately 16:00, they arrived back to the mainland where the grievor proceeded to pick up a meal at a drive thru prior to returning the departmental vehicle to the Detachment. The grievor completed work for the day by 16:30.
Following the supervised seal hunt, the grievor submitted a claim for 1.5 hours of overtime for the day and sent claims on March 4, 2019 for meal allowances. While overtime and a lunch allowance were reimbursed, the claim for dinner was not.
The meal expense claim for dinner was denied on April 17, 2019, and shortly thereafter, a grievance was submitted.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the Employer’s failure to provide compensation for a dinner meal allowance during an extended period of overtime on January 27, 2019, while on travel status in accordance with subsection 3.2.9 of the Travel Directive (the Directive).
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative is of the opinion that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive. It was noted that while there was no discrepancy between the parties regarding the facts of this grievance, the representative argued the crux of this grievance is that decisions on whether or not to reimburse a meal are to be made on a case-by-case basis, and not on the letter of the Directive. The representative claimed that in this case the decision to deny the reimbursement for dinner was made arbitrarily, without consideration for the factors and circumstances. The conditions of the workday in question were far from typical; the work location was remote and isolated, with no way to purchase food. The grievor and a colleague were flown there by helicopter, with no way to quickly remove themselves from the area. The participants in the seal hunt were armed and the grievor and their colleague needed to be on constant alert, while analysing their surroundings and looking out for each other. The location was extremely cold in the winter and the representative noted that this environmental stress added to the overall tension the grievor and colleague were experiencing. Although they had brought food, there was no opportunity to have a lunch break given all the factors outlined above. Therefore, when the grievor returned to the mainland, tired and hungry, they immediately stopped for something to eat.
The representative noted that these factors should have been given fulsome consideration by the Employer before the decision was made to deny the meal. The representative argued that grievances concerning the denial of benefits under an NJC directive are decided upon whether the employee feels they were treated within the intent of the Directive, not the written words contained therein, as outlined on NJC website under the section on the NJC grievance process.
The representative argued that to determine if the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive, one needs to juxtapose the decision to deny the reimbursement for dinner against the Principles detailed at the outset of the Directive, which were developed jointly by the parties. These principles of trust, flexibility, respect, valuing people, transparency and modern travel practices, are the cornerstone for the management of government travel, and guide all employees and managers in achieving fair, reasonable and modern travel practices across the Public Service.
With respect to the above, the Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive, and that the corrective measures be awarded. In summary, the representative claimed that the Employer was not flexible, did not create or encourage an atmosphere of respect or support, and did not demonstrate their recognition of the difficult nature of the work performed by the grievor on the day in question.
Departmental Presentation
The Employer representative argued that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive. The Department arrived at its decision based on a review of the Directive, guidelines provided by the departmental Chief Financial Officer, the pattern of the employee’s shift schedule, and the details surrounding the day in question. As the employee was on travel status during the scheduled shift, as per article 28.10(d) of the Technical Services collective agreement, the employee was not entitled to any meal allowances for the overtime worked under the provisions of the collective agreement. In reviewing the claim for a dinner allowance, the Employer turned to subsection 3.2.9 (travel outside headquarters area – no overnight stay – meals) of the Directive in conjunction with the principles that govern said Directive, which confirms that reimbursement of meals for shift workers shall be based on the meal sequence of breakfast, lunch and dinner, in relation to the commencement of the employee's shift. As the employee is a shift worker, management determined that, based on the timing of the scheduled shift and despite the additional overtime worked, the grievor’s meal sequence was not interrupted by any work obligations on January 27, 2019, to the extent that a dinner allowance would be warranted. The employee departed the office by 16:30 on January 27 to begin the commute home, and had the employee not stopped for dinner on the way back to the office to return the departmental vehicle, they would have been able to leave the office even sooner. The representative referred to the NJC Information Session on the Revised Government Travel Directive 2008 (Questions and Answers) from May 12, 2008, which further clarifies when an employee is entitled to a meal. As the employee ended their workday at 16:30, the Department is of the position that it would not be reasonable to reimburse the employee for a meal based on this departure time. This position also appears to be supported by two previous Committee decisions, 21.4.453 and 21.4.432. These principles are also supported by the Department’s Financial Policy Division. In the schedule provided for the period of January 21-27, 2019, the employee was on shift from 08:00 to 16:00 during the period of January 23-25, 2019, and from 07:00 to 15:00 on January 26 and 27, 2019. As such, the disruption to the employee’s schedule caused by an additional 1.5 hours of overtime on January 27, 2019 was minimal, similar to their departure times from previous days within the same schedule and ought not to have altered the grievor’s meal sequence.
The representative noted that during the grievance hearings at the first and second levels, it was presented that due to harsh working conditions (i.e. cold temperatures) on January 27, 2019 and given the change in start time, the claim for the dinner allowance should be approved as a measure of good faith based on the NJC’s principles of respect and trust. It was also presented that there is inconsistency with the application of the Directive for meal allowances amongst the various regional detachments. While not disputing that conditions on January 27, 2019 may have been challenging, the Department is of the opinion that the decision that was taken to deny the meal allowance was done in good faith and in keeping with the purpose and scope of the Directive. With respect to the inconsistency in application within the region, this was addressed by Labour Relations within the Department to ensure consistent and accurate advice and guidance. Nevertheless, it does not negate that management must make a decision based on their interpretation of the Directive and in this case, the Department is of the view that this decision was accurate and falls within the intent of the Directive.
In conclusion, the Department believes that the decision above has been made while respecting the intent of the Directive at subsection 3.2.9 and as a result, maintains that the grievance should be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that though the grievor’s work situation was stressful and unique, the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. It was noted that given that the grievor’s shift ended at 16:30, it is reasonable to expect that they would be responsible for their dinner. As such, the grievance was denied.