December 14, 2022
21.4.1140
Background
The grievor works at Department X and regularly travels to fulfill the functions of their position. The grievor was subject to a blanket travel authority for the 2020-2021 fiscal year. On August 20, 2021, the grievor commuted from their personal residence to the regional office using their personal motor vehicle (PMV), picked-up a departmental vehicle (as requested by the Employer) at the regional office and proceeded to travel to their duty destination using the departmental vehicle, then returned the departmental vehicle to the regional office at the end of the day and commuted home using their PMV. The grievor’s travel claim was partially approved; the Employer did not provide reimbursement for the mileage while using a PMV to and from the regional office.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the Employer’s decision to not provide reimbursement for the use of their personal vehicle when commuting from their personal residence to the regional office.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the issue is the Employer’s denial of the grievor’s request for reimbursement of their travel between their home and their permanent workplace. They indicated that the grievor went to the Location A front desk in City B to pick up the keys for the departmental vehicle before proceeding to City C They emphasized that the grievor did not access their usual workspace, which was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and then returned to Location A in City B at the end of the workday to return the vehicle prior to returning to their residence. They also confirmed that the grievor was back at their residence by 4:00 p.m. They clarified that the Employer’s rationale for the denial is that the grievor was not travelling on government business for this portion of the day since travel status on their normal working day would start when the employee took possession of the departmental vehicle at the workplace.
The representative highlighted that the grievor did not carry out any of the usual duties of their position or any of their assigned tasks at Location A in City B. They argued that the eligibility for reimbursement of travel expenses between an employee’s residence and their usual workplace was clarified in the 2017 and 2021 Frequently Asked Questions communiqués, the previous version from December 2005, as well as in an interpretation letter to the Department in 2009. The representative provided the context of the criteria as outlined in each of those documents.
The representative noted that the Employer’s response at the first level did not include the reason why the grievor was instructed to go to a closed workplace, in the opposite direction from the grievor’s residence to City C, adding an additional 49 kilometres and 47 minutes to the travel, not including the time required to retrieve and return the keys and swap vehicles. The representative alleged that the logical reason for the detour was to save the cost of reimbursement of the kilometric rate to the traveller.
The representative argued that the Employer discounted the 2009 NJC interpretation in its second level response as the interpretation arose from situations where the employees would continue travel via airplane after parking at their workplace. The representative countered that the interpretation of the Directive does not depend on the subsequent mode of travel. They noted that the response cited grievance 21.4.993 which they argued differed from the current grievance as the grievor complied in all ways with the Employer’s travel authorization, rendering the citation moot. They noted that the response explained that travel between the grievor’s home and workplace was one made on normal working days, that there were no additional costs incurred and therefore their normal commute was not disrupted. The representative argued that this was not the situation at the time, as the grievor’s workplace was closed and the grievor had been directed to work from home. Therefore, they argued that additional costs were incurred as the grievor was required to travel to City C to perform their duties but was directed to the City B, Location A first.
The representative questioned what may constitute a valid reason as identified in the 2021 FAQ regarding remote work, telework and travel. They noted that the Employer asserted that the term “valid reason” allows the employer to specify any reason to report to the normal workplace before proceeding onward, indicating that this Employer is citing the use of a departmental vehicle as a valid reason. They clarified that the Department frequently required its employees to use departmental vehicles when working from the office as they would be working in their office, leave to attend the remote work location to perform their duties and then return to the office. They highlighted that the difference on this date was that the office was closed and therefore the grievor’s sole purpose for attending the office was to access a departmental vehicle.
In light of these arguments, the Bargaining Agent representative requested that the grievance be upheld as well as clarifying the intent of the Directive in relation to the term “valid reason”.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative additionally clarified that the grievor regularly travels and therefore holds a blanket travel authorization that is renewed annually. The employee is required to travel on a regular basis and is expected to use departmental vehicles when on government travel. It is the common practice to use departmental vehicles when travelling and doing inspections.
The representative provided the considerations used by the Department in determining when an employee should use a departmental vehicle, including, but not limited to, proximity to the remote worksite, departmental vehicle equipment and signage, as well as the reliability of the vehicle due to maintenance schedules. They advised that these were the reasons the grievor was required to use a departmental vehicle, consistent with the “valid reason” from the 2021 NJC Communiqué. They stated that, accordingly, the grievor’s travel status began and ended at the permanent workplace and not the grievor’s residence. Additionally, they noted that the grievor did not request to travel directly from their residence to the remote worksite using their personal motor vehicle.
The representative further indicated that the 2009 interpretation document does not apply in this situation as the grievor did not travel onwards via airplane as was specified in the request for interpretation.
In light of these arguments, the Employer representative indicated that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive and requested that the grievance be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. It was noted that the Department routinely requests that employees use departmental vehicles for such trips. Given this practice, it was reasonable for the Department to expect the grievor to collect the departmental vehicle at the workplace. In addition, the vehicle was collected during the grievor’s regular work hours. Therefore, the Committee concluded that the travel to the office to pick up the departmental vehicle did not constitute a disruption to the grievor’s regular commuting pattern and had a purpose beyond cost savings. As such, the grievance was denied.