Foreign Service Directives – Travel Expenses

Background

The grievors are employed by Department X at Facility A in City B, State C, Country D. Their permanent work location was considered Location E in Canada but would physically work at Location F in City B. In December 2013, Facility A advised Department X that they planned to move ten (10) kilometers further into State C, which was relayed to staff as well as the Bargaining Agent. On May 9, 2014, management contacted regional finance to determine if the grievors would be entitled to any benefits under the NJC Travel Directive, Relocation Directive or Foreign Service Directives. The interpretation indicated that the employees would not be entitled to benefits.

On January 15, 2015, the move was completed, and Facility A was relocated. This new location was deemed to be the employees’ new permanent work location. Shortly thereafter, the grievors began submitting travel claims for meals and mileage, which were all denied by management. The grievors then filed grievances for those denied travel claims.

Grievance

The employees are grieving the Employer’s denial of travel claims for all regular and overtime shifts worked at Facility A located in City B, State C, Country D.

Bargaining Agent Presentation

The Bargaining Agent representative began their presentation by briefly explaining the nature of the job of the grievors. The representative also noted that the Letters of Offer for the grievors state that their initial assignment will be at Facility A in City B, State C. The use of the term “initial assignment” was emphasized, as well as the fact that the assignment location is approximately 10 km into Country D. Additionally, the representative noted that there does not appear to be any language in the Foreign Service Directives (FSD) that clearly excludes the eligibility of the grievors. The purpose and scope of the FSD was referenced, as well as the principle of comparability, and provisions from FSD 30 – Post Transportation and Related Expenses, and FSD 56 - Foreign Service Incentive Allowances.

The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievors are incurring various expenses and facing various difficulties, including but not limited to:

• expenses for mileage (10.8 km) between Facility A and the border as they are not granted a Crown vehicle, nor were they allowed to relocate to Country D;
• expenses for roaming charges when using their personal cellphones during the day, as the Wi-Fi password is not shared with them and the only available telephone is in the supervisor’s office;
• fees for Country D currency exchange (such as in cases where grievors buy their lunch);
• border food restrictions, resulting in difficulties packing lunches;
• border traffic, resulting in regularly extended working hours.

It was indicated that these expenses and difficulties are based solely on the location of their work assignment, and that these expenses are not incurred by employees working similar positions in Canada, which puts the grievors in a less favourable position. As such, the Bargaining Agent representative indicated that they believe that allowances in relation to the Foreign Service Directives should be retroactively issued to the grievors.

After various questions from committee members, the Bargaining Agent representative clarified that there are several other similar Department X work locations on the Country D side of the border, but these locations are closer to the border and as such, employees working at these locations are not faced with the same difficulties that the grievors are faced with. It was further clarified that the grievors have worker passports, which allows for faster processing when crossing the border. Additionally, it was noted that the grievors are asking to be reimbursed for the true costs they have incurred, and that although the wording of the Letters of Offer state “initial assignment”, there is no end-date to the assignment.

Departmental Presentation

The Departmental representative began their presentation by going over some background information about the grievors’ work location. It was explained that prior to the relocation, Facility A was located at the border. Due to this, the grievors would report to a facility in Country H to obtain their protective equipment, receive a briefing and then proceed to Facility A by walking across the border or by driving a Crown vehicle. It was noted that the decision to move Facility A further across the border was made by Country D. After the move, the grievors began commuting directly to Facility A using their personal motor vehicles and subsequently started submitting claims for travel and lunch.

The Departmental representative indicated that Department X recognizes that the Foreign Service Directives provide allowances, but that Department X does not believe the allowances are applicable to the grievors, as the language in the directives clearly infer an expectation that employees must be departing Canada and living abroad to be eligible for the allowances. Additionally, the representative referred to FSD 3 – Application, and the definitions of “career foreign service employee” and “foreign assignment employee” in FSD 2 – Definitions and indicated that they do not believe the grievors fit within these definitions as they do not occupy rotational positions.

The representative noted that during previous hearings for these grievances, only FSD 15 – Relocation and FSD 30 – Post Transportation and Related Expenses were brought to the Employer’s attention. As such, they stated that Department X believes that the additional 10 kms the grievors are now travelling does not meet the threshold for FSD 15 and FSD 30. Finally, the representative acknowledged the uncommon situation the grievors are in but stated they do not believe the FSD are applicable to the situation.

After a question from a committee member, the Departmental representative clarified that the grievors’ indeterminate substantive positions are located at Facility A in City B, State C and that there is no rotational aspect to the grievors’ work. When questioned about the terminology “initial assignment” found within the Letters of Offer for the grievors, the representative indicated that this is simply a poor choice of words and does not mean “assignment” in the context of staffing. Additionally, the Departmental representative was asked whether Department X considered alternative options to the directives, to address the grievances, to which the representative responded no.

Executive Committee Decision

The Executive Committee considered the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee and agreed with the recommendation that the grievors were treated within the intent of the Foreign Service Directives, as they work outside Canada but do not live outside Canada. As such, the grievance is denied. Notwithstanding, it is strongly recommended that the Department engage in discussions with the Bargaining Agent to address the unusual circumstances of this specific work arrangement.