February 3, 2021
21.4.1128
Background
The grievor is employed at Department X in City A, Province F. The grievor was travelling on government business outside the headquarters area on the following days: May 2, 8, 9, 23, 24 and 29 in 2017. On these days, the grievor was travelling from 5:45 a.m. to between 5:10 p.m. and 5:55 p.m. depending on the overtime hours performed.
On June 13, 2017, the grievor submitted a travel claim in order to receive payment for the meal allowances for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The Employer approved the payment of the meal allowances for breakfast and lunch; however, the dinner allowance was denied. As such, the grievor filed a grievance on July 18, 2017.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the fact that while on government travel outside the headquarters area for 11.5 hours per day, arriving home one-and-a-half hours later in the evening than usual for several days, the dinner allowance was denied. Normally, the grievor arrives at home around 3:30 p.m., but while on government travel, the grievor arrived after 5:00 p.m., constituting a substantial change in the grievor’s work habits. The same situation occurred with another Department X employee and that employee’s dinner allowance was granted. In the case of the other employee, they arrived at home at around 6:00 p.m. while they normally arrive at 4:30 p.m. which is one-and-a-half hour later than usual, and that dinner allowance was granted.
Furthermore, the other employee was on authorized government travel for 11 hours and was granted the dinner allowance, while the grievor was authorized on government travel for 11.5 hours yet had their dinner allowance denied.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative is of the opinion that the Employer’s decision cannot be justified by the facts and does not fall within the intent of the Travel Directive. The representative stated that the intention of the Directive is to allow the employee to request the entitlement for a meal if they are in travel status at the normal time that the meal would have been taken. The representative emphasized that the use of the word “shall” in subsection 3.2.9 of the Travel Directive means that the Employer’s obligation is triggered once the employee is in travel status at the usual time of the meal, that being 5:00 p.m. in this case.
The representative pointed out that the Employer has not argued the fact that the grievor was on travel status on the dates in question, nor is there an issue regarding the times that the grievor returned to their residence on the dates subject to this grievance.
The representative further argued that the denial of the dinner claim is not within the intent of the Directive, specifically the principles of flexibility and transparency. In referencing the second level response, the representative asserted that the Employer has determined the reasonable hour for the employee’s meal as 6:00 p.m., compensating the grievor for those dates when the return to their residence was at or after that time, but refusing the entitlement on the date when the grievor arrived home at 5:55 p.m. which the representative asserted goes against the principle of flexibility of meeting the employee’s needs and interests. Those dates are not part of this grievance as the entitlement was paid. The representative stated that the Employer should take each employee’s particular situation and disturbances to daily routines into account. It is noted that the Travel Directive does not specify a time for the dinner meal, however the representative does not believe it is consistent with the intent of the Directive to allow the Employer to unilaterally determine the reasonable time to compensate an employee for a meal.
From the perspective of transparency, the Bargaining Agent representative noted that the Employer reimbursed another employee in a similar situation in 2015. The representative indicated that the employee in that case usually returned home at 4:30 p.m., eating their meal at 5:30 p.m., and claimed a meal reimbursement for a day when they returned home at 6:00 p.m., merely 30 minutes after their usual mealtime and received the meal entitlement. The representative indicates that the claim was initially denied due to it being merely a 30-minute delay. The Department’s National Travel Manager shared an email with the union and employees where it was stated that the Employer must be flexible and consider the individual circumstances of the employee and that, in that case, the employee left early and returned home late, and therefore they should lean towards reimbursement of the dinner claim. The representative stated that the employee in question was, in fact, allowed the claim, and given the National Travel Manager’s position, this indicates the standard at the Department.
The representative compared the two situations. In the previous case, the employee was in travel status for 11 hours whereas the grievor in this case was in travel status for 11 hours and 35 min to 12 hours and 5 minutes. In the previous situation, the compensated employee returned home 30 minutes after their normal mealtime, whereas the grievor returned home at least 90 minutes to 2 hours later than usual, which must be considered a disruption to their daily routine.
As the Employer has refused this dinner claim when they allowed it two years previously, the representative asserted that the Employer demonstrated a lack of consistency, fairness and equity in the application of the Directive. The representative noted that the Employer has not provided any explanation for this difference in treatment.
In conclusion, the representative asserted that the grievor has not been treated within the intent of the Directive as the grievor was not compensated for a meal even though the grievor was on travel status during their usual dinner time. Additionally, the representative stated that the Employer’s decision not to reimburse the grievor goes against the principles of flexibility and transparency of the NJC Travel Directive.
Therefore, the Bargaining Agent representative requests that the grievance be upheld and the grievor be reimbursed for dinner on the requested dates.
Departmental Presentation
The Employer representative agrees with the information from the Bargaining Agent’s presentation in regard to the locations where the grievor worked, where the grievor was on assignment as well as the dates when the grievor filed the claims. The representative emphasized that the grievor filed two separate expense claims, one for the dates that are the subject of this grievance, and another for the entire month of May 2017.
According to the grievor, they provided an expense claim for the entire month of May 2017 to their supervisor in June of 2017. There was a verbal discussion with the supervisor who asked the grievor to create a separate claim for the dinners on the dates that are subject to this grievance. In July 2017, the Employer received a grievance for these dates from the grievor and requested that the entitlement be allowed due to the length of the travel.
The representative stated that the essence of the grievor’s testimony at the first level hearing was centered on the disruption to their routine, being the time spent with the grievor’s children and their practice of resting prior to eating, however it did not change their usual dinner time. At the second level hearing, the representative indicated that the meal was voluntarily delayed in order to keep to the grievor’s routine.
The Employer representative asserted that the grievor was treated equitably and according to the provisions of the NJC Travel Directive. The Employer believed it reasonable to expect the grievor to eat the evening meal at their residence, the grievor had already been compensated for all applicable meal allowances for the period in question. Additionally, during the first and second level hearings, the grievor confirmed that, while they arrived home later than usual and there was a disruption to their routine, the evening meal was not affected.
In the grievance, the representative stated that the grievor said they were on travel status for over eleven-and-a-half hours, which meant that they returned home after 5:00 p.m. and that the Employer refused to compensate them for dinner. Furthermore, the grievor stated that a colleague who was on travel status for 11 hours had received their evening meal entitlement.
The representative argued that the length of travel status is not the determining factor in the reimbursement of the meal, that what the Employer must consider is the reasonableness of the claim and that was what was considered in this case. According to the Employer, it was reasonable for the grievor to take their meal at home given the hour of arrival. The representative stated that this assumption was confirmed by the grievor during the previous grievance level hearings. It was further noted that the grievor did not purchase a meal, provide a receipt for a meal, nor miss the evening meal at their residence. In fact, the grievor’s testimony was that they arrived home in time for dinner but delayed it in order to rest or play with their children prior to eating.
It was noted that the grievor did not provide any reason to support the dinner claim, other than to indicate that a colleague received compensation for a similar length of travel status duration.
The Employer representative cited precedents in regards to reasonableness within the NJC, specifically 21.4.1047 where the Executive Committee denied the grievance, stating that it was reasonable to expect the employee to eat dinner at home on the days in question, given the time the employee arrived at home. In this case, the ruling stood regardless of the fact that the grievor was in travel status outside the headquarters area for over 11 hours. A second precedent, 21.4.1065, where the grievance was denied by the Executive Committee also concluded that it was reasonable to expect the employee to eat dinner at home given the time he arrived at home, even though their travel status also lasted 11 hours.
In conclusion, the Employer’s representative asserted that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive, that it was reasonable for the Employer to expect the grievor to eat dinner at their residence, given the time of arrival, and that the grievor was treated fairly.
Therefore, the representative requested that this grievance be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. The Executive Committee agreed that, given all the variables, noting that the time of arrival is only one aspect, it was not unreasonable for the Employer to expect the grievor to have supper at their residence and that therefore they were no longer on travel status at the time of the meal. As such, the grievance is denied.