November 9, 2022
21.4.1139
Background
The employee was in City A, Province G from November 9 to 20, 2020, for a training course and stayed in a hotel that provided breakfast. Due to the pandemic and the public health measures in place, the hotel buffet was not open, and a brown-bag breakfast was supplied as an alternative. The employee found this insufficient and bought breakfast outside of the hotel.
The employee submitted meal claims for nine (9) breakfasts, totalling $187.20 and they were denied on December 30, 2020. The grievance was submitted on January 15, 2021.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the Employer’s refusal to pay the meal allowances for nine (9) breakfasts for the period of November 9 to 20, 2020.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the issue at hand is meal receipts and per diems. They indicated that the grievor travelled to City A, Province G from November 9 to 20 2020 on authorized government travel, staying at a hotel that normally provides breakfast in the in-house restaurant, and is so indicated in the Accommodations and Car Rental Directory. They remarked that the grievor had stayed at this hotel previously. However, the representative stated that when the grievor arrived at the hotel, they were advised that the hotel restaurant was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore the grievor was to receive a “grab & go bag” or brown bag breakfast that consisted of a bagel or muffin. They specified that the grievor did not believe the bag constituted a breakfast, and therefore purchased breakfast at a restaurant elsewhere for the nine (9) days of the training. The representative noted that the grievor’s regional management agreed with the grievor’s assessment that the brown bag was inadequate as a breakfast. As the grievor did not believe the brown bag was a breakfast, he discarded the receipts, believing they were not needed as they were entitled to the full amount. The representative noted that the grievor’s travel expense claim was accepted with the exception of the breakfasts, which were rejected.
The Bargaining Agent representative said the grievor then provided a personal declaration in lieu of receipts, which was again rejected by the Employer who requested a bank or credit card statement to prove the amount spent, since the grievor was claiming the meal allowance amount. The grievor paid cash, according to the representative, noting that the average price of breakfast at the restaurant the grievor attended was roughly equivalent to the amount of the breakfast allowance, and that it was therefore reasonable for the grievor to have spent at least the total allowance. They argued that the grievor spent more than the allowance, but is not entitled to the additional amount, and therefore the grievor only put the allowance amount in their personal declaration.
The representative argued that the language in the Directive does not allow the Employer discretion to refuse a personal declaration, as it uses the word “shall”, nor does it allow for the Employer to request additional supporting documents, such as bank or credit card statements. They also argued that the grievor accidentally discarded the receipts as they were under the impression that they were not required, meeting one of the criteria of subsection 1.4.1 of the Directive, which the employer stated the grievor did not meet in their second level decision. They further argued that, while the grievor may not refuse a meal provided, the substance of the provided meal was inadequate to be considered a meal.
The representative emphasized that departmental requirements above and beyond what is indicated in the Directive is not consistent with the intent of the Directive. The representative cited NJC grievance 21.4.1034 to support that a department may not require additional justification beyond that required by the Directive. Therefore, the Bargaining Agent representative requested that the grievance be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative concurred with the background information provided by the Bargaining Agent but indicated that the bag breakfast offered to the grievor contained one (1) of five (5) choices as well as a juice, muffin, Nutri-grain bar and an apple. The representative noted that the grievor found this to be an insufficient breakfast and chose to supplement their meal under subsection 3.3.9 of the Directive, which authorizes reimbursement of the actual costs incurred, based upon receipts. As the grievor is a frequent traveller and manager, the representative argued that the grievor is aware of the requirements for receipts under the Directive.
The representative indicated that the grievor sent a photo of the contents of the bag breakfast to their manager, indicating that it was not satisfactory, but did not request prior approval or offer an alternative solution to the manager. They also confirmed that the Directive is extremely clear on the subject, so that the Employer understands the actions taken by employees to supplement a meal provided they have deemed insufficient.
The representative noted that the Employer demonstrated flexibility and openness by allowing the grievor to submit a personal statement/statutory declaration representing the actual costs incurred for breakfast or the credit or debit card statement to indicate the amount paid, however the grievor did not provide the actual costs incurred, only the allowance amount. Therefore, they argued that it is not possible for the Employer to determine the actual cost for each of the supplemental breakfasts purchased by the grievor. Given this fact, they asserted that granting the reimbursement claim could constitute a personal gain in contravention of the spirit 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 that noted 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.