September 29, 2021
21.4.1129
Background
On the morning of September 14, 2018, the grievor was required to travel outside the headquarters area for work for a court hearing. Their regular hours of work are 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The location of the hearing was 85 km away and scheduled for 9:00 a.m. The grievor left home at 7 a.m. and stopped en route to buy breakfast at 8:15 a.m. After the court hearing, they returned home, arriving at 11:20 a.m. and completed the rest of their workday from home.
The employee requested approval for reimbursement for a meal allowance for breakfast, parking, and the kilometric rate prior to their trip. The Employer agreed to reimburse the employee for the parking fees and the kilometric rate; however, denied the preapproval for the breakfast meal allowance, arguing that it was reasonable for the grievor to eat breakfast before leaving home. The Employer had approved the grievor to begin travel between 7:45 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.; however, the grievor chose to leave at 7:00 a.m. to allow for traffic and parking delays. The employee is of the view that eating breakfast at 6:30 a.m. disrupts their regular eating pattern, as they are used to eating at 8:00 a.m., and believes they are entitled to the breakfast meal allowance.
There was no denial of a breakfast meal on the travel claim, as it was not possible for the grievor to add the meal to the travel claim. It is current practice by the Employer that an employee required to travel on government business must first submit a request for travel authorization, which includes all expenses and indemnities that the employee plans to claim upon return from the trip. Once submitted, the Employer determines which expenses will be authorized, and the electronic expense claim will be completed upon return from travel. Therefore, expenses that have not previously been approved in the system, in this case the breakfast meal, cannot be claimed by the employee. Therefore, following the grievor’s travel, on October 2, 2019 the grievor sent the manager an email to explain the timing of their travel, and justify why they consumed the breakfast meal while on travel status. The manager maintained their initial position and denied the request for the breakfast allowance.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the Employer’s refusal to pay for the breakfast meal allowance while on travel status outside the headquarters area on September 14, 2018. Despite several explanations, the Employer maintains its position and refuses to pay for the allowance, which the employee considers unreasonable and contrary to the intent of the Travel Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that regardless of the amount involved in the grievance, the Employer’s decision is a reflection of their interpretation and the application of the Travel Directive and that the real question of this grievance is to determine if the Department is respecting the intent of the Directive.
The representative advised that on September 14, 2018, the grievor had to attend the City A courthouse at 9:00 a.m. At the time, the grievor lived in City B and according to Google Maps, the distance between the locations is approximately 80 kilometers with the commute lasting approximately one hour with no traffic. In order to arrive on time at the courthouse, the grievor determined that it was reasonable to leave home at 7:00 a.m. to allow for travel time, traffic, parking and finding the hearing room. Once they arrived in City A, the grievor stopped at a Tim Hortons two (2) kilometers from the courthouse to pick up breakfast. They then continued to the courthouse parking lot, where parking fees were paid at 8:28 a.m. The representative indicated that the grievor then proceeded into the courthouse, arriving at the courtroom at 8:40 a.m.
The Bargaining Agent representative advised that the grievor’s regular working hours as agreed upon with their manager are from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p,m. and the grievor normally eats breakfast at 8:00 a.m., leaving home at approximately 9:00 a.m. Had the grievor done as the Employer suggested, to have breakfast between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m., the representative stated that it clearly would have been a disruption of the grievor’s routine. The representative asserted that the manager’s expectation that the grievor be accorded the absolute minimum time to travel to the courthouse was unreasonable, whereas by departing at 7:00 a.m., eating along the way and arriving at 8:40 a.m. for a 9:00 a.m. court time demonstrated the grievor’s professionalism and respect for the court’s time.
The representative referenced the principles of flexibility and respect as well as subsection 1.1.1 of the Directive. Quoting subsection 3.2.9, the representative asserted that the grievor was travelling at the time of their breakfast at 8:20 and that to force the grievor to consume breakfast two hours earlier than their habit was an additional but avoidable pressure. The representative argued that the Directive should be applied with flexibility, respect and openness, taking into account the traveller’s particular situation; in this case, the grievor’s regular shift from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Referencing the FAQ dated May 12, 2008, the Bargaining Agent representative further argued that there is a duty to respect the traveller’s routine implicit in the answer to FAQ 9. The representative concluded that it may be assumed that the Employer considered it reasonable to force the grievor to eat breakfast two (2) hours earlier than usual whereas the events that transpired made it simple to eat breakfast at a time closer to their usual mealtime. In making its determination as it did, the representative underlined that the Employer did not respect the principles and intent of the Directive, considering it unreasonable to require the grievor to eat so much earlier where there was no clear requirement to support the Employer’s position.
Therefore, the Bargaining Agent representative requested that the grievance be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Employer representative confirmed that the grievor was in fact travelling outside their headquarters area on September 14, 2017, and that the manager had authorized them to leave home to the City A courthouse, approximately 85 kilometers away. The representative indicated that the estimated travel time was approximately one hour, and the expenses related to using their personal vehicle, lunch as well as parking were approved by the manager, but not breakfast, further indicating the departure time was agreed to be between 7:45 and 8:00 a.m. In an email to the manager, the representative advised that the grievor stated their normal breakfast hour is 8:00 a.m., and given that they would be leaving at most fifteen (15) minutes earlier, it was reasonable to expect them to eat before leaving, referring the grievor to NJC decision 21.4.487 where the grievor left home for training at 7:45 a.m. and returned home at 6:20 p.m. The Committee determined that the grievor in that instance was not entitled to breakfast and dinner entitlements given the hours they left and returned to their residence.
The representative advised that the grievor did not agree with the Employer’s decision nor the cited precedent and requested that the manager consult with the financial services section. This was done and the representative quoted the position that the Department does not pay for breakfast and/or dinner when the travel lasts a day or less. The grievor then referred the manager to the FAQ on the NJC website, specifically FAQ 9, however the manager was satisfied that their decision aligned with the intent of the Directive and upheld the decision.
The Employer representative advised that the grievor then requested that Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) be consulted on the question. In October 2019, the response was received stressing the importance of reviewing all the factors affecting the traveller’s ability to eat breakfast and whether it was during or before the travel status. The opinion also referenced subsection 3.2.9 of the Directive, FAQ 9 and precedent 21.4.1065. In that grievance, the Committee indicated that it was reasonable for the employee to eat at home given the time of their arrival home. TBS also mentioned that mealtimes are not specified for various reasons. The representative argued that, in the current grievance, the grievor was allowed to depart from their residence and use their personal vehicle instead of travelling an additional half hour to the office, which resulted in avoiding additional travel, delays or disruption to their daily routine, in line with the intent of the Directive.
The representative advised that the Department’s corporate financial services was consulted in June 2019 for their position on the issue. The response provided was that the regional office had received guidance on the topic and that flexibility is maintained in the interpretation of the Directive to allow for differences in situations, and that the manager could continue to uphold or revisit the decision regarding the breakfast allowance, given the Department’s response as well as that of Treasury Board.
Referencing hearings at previous levels, the Employer representative advised that the grievor stated they had a strict dietary regimen and that they always eat breakfast at 8:00 a.m., however indicated that the grievor demonstrated flexibility by eating as late as 8:30 a.m., and therefore asserted that it seemed reasonable for the grievor to have breakfasted at 7:45 a.m. or before leaving their residence on this day instead. The representative explained that while the manager was aware of the grievor’s intention to leave their residence two (2) hours early to arrive at 8:30 a.m., they did not see why this was necessary as the grievor was only required to be there on time and needed no preparation time. The representative underscored that the rationale of avoiding possible traffic slowdowns was countered by the fact that the grievor stopped to pick up a meal, which in itself could have created additional delays.
The Employer representative emphasized that the intent of the Directive does not include accommodating each employee’s preference. The representative concluded by asserting that allowing the grievor to depart from their residence, to eat at a time close to their usual time as well as to use their personal vehicle to go to the City A courthouse served to diminish the disruption to their daily routine, which is in line with the intent of the Directive and that the Employer thereby met the requirements of the Directive. Therefore, the representative requested that the grievance be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee and noted that it could not reach a consensus on whether the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. The Executive Committee was unable to reach a consensus on this issue either. As such, the Executive Committee reached an impasse.