Background

The grievor works in City A, Province G for Department X (the “Department”). In March of 2018, the grievor was offered an opportunity to attend non-mandatory training in City B, Country M in June 2018. On March 27, 2018, the grievor applied for and received a standard Canadian (blue) passport. On April 12, 2018, the grievor was advised that the cost of a passport would not be reimbursed. The grievor attended the training from June 3 – 16, 2018. Upon the grievor’s return, they requested reimbursement via an expense claim which was denied by their manager on June 29, 2018. The grievor filed a grievance on July 11, 2018.

Grievance

The employee is grieving the Employer’s decision to deny reimbursement of travel expenses while on approved government travel and that the Employer did not apply and interpret the NJC Travel Directive (the “Directive”) according to its intent.

Bargaining Agent Presentation

The Bargaining Agent representative explained the timeline of events, beginning with the grievor’s initial letter of offer from October 2016, which did not include holding a passport as a condition of employment. They noted the travel ended on June 16, 2018, when the grievor returned from Country M where they had been on travel status for training. They advised that the grievor submitted their travel expense claim with their receipts as per section 1.4 of the Directive. They shared that the travel claim was rejected by management on June 26, 2018, and that the grievor filed this grievance on July 10, 2018.

The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the first level hearing clarified that the expenses related to reimbursement of Nexus, passport and passport photo were also incurred during travel. They confirmed that, at the time of travel, the grievor was subject to the Technical Services (TC) collective agreement, with an expiry of June 21, 2018. They reviewed the NJC grievance procedure under section 15 of the NJC By-laws.

The Bargaining Agent representative noted the claims of management in the first and second level responses, notably that the grievance was untimely. They refuted these claims as inaccurate, as the grievor filed the grievance once the travel claim was rejected, stating that there was nothing to grieve until that point. they highlighted subsection 3.3.2 of the Directive, “Where required, the employer shall make the necessary arrangements for obtaining entry documents as determined by the department, and/or an appropriate passport and photos, and/or visa as determined by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.” They also pointed to point four (4) of the NJC Communiqué “Travel Directive - April 1, 2008 - Points of Clarification on Specific Issues with Respect to Intent” which clarified that same section, stating:

 “4. Entry Documents – Additional Business Expenses (sections 3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.3.2, and 3.4.2)

Various entry documents such as NEXUS, CanPass, Visas, or Passport (Standard – blue, Government – green, Diplomatic – red) may be required for government travel.

The cost of obtaining the appropriate document will be reimbursed by the employer.”

The Bargaining Agent representative therefore requested that the grievance be upheld.

Departmental Presentation

The Departmental representative reviewed the grievor’s situation at the time of the grievance. They indicated that the grievor inquired about the reimbursement of the blue Canadian passport, which management indicated would not be reimbursed after consulting with the departmental finance group. The representative indicated that this denial was provided on April 12, 2018. They noted that the grievor attended the training in Country M from June 3 to June 16, 2018. They indicated that the grievor again requested reimbursement of their travel documents on June 27, 2018, this time referencing the Travel Directive. They shared that management denied the request with the justification provided in April 2018.

The Departmental representative noted that the grievance was filed on July 10, 2018, seeking reimbursement of travel documents, expenses, as well as overtime and travel time. However, during the first level grievance hearing on September 5, 2018, the grievor amended the corrective measures and clarified that they were for reimbursement for passport, passport picture and Nexus expenses.

With respect to the Travel Directive, the Departmental representative indicated that the Directive stipulates that the Employer is responsible for making the necessary arrangements for obtaining entry documents, including the appropriate passport and photo, as determined by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAIT). They also shared the departmental Financial Policy and Procedures Manual specifically references the reimbursement of the cost of obtaining a regular (blue) passport, noting that it is only considered when it is possible that the employee would be at risk if identified as representing the Canadian government. They referenced travel.gc.ca travel advice and advisories for the Country M noting that the indications are that the Country M is a safe place to travel and to proceed with similar precautions to domestic travel within Canada. Therefore, they argued that there was no reason to believe the grievor would be at risk travelling to Country M, and consequently, there was no reason for the Department to inquire with DFAIT to check the document requirements.

The Departmental representative discussed the purpose of Nexus, noting that it is designed to speed up border crossings for low-risk, pre-approved travelers. They highlighted the Employer determination requirement for necessary arrangements under subsection 3.3.2 of the Directive. They indicated that Nexus was not necessary for travel, nor was it discussed with management prior to travel. Therefore, they concluded that Nexus was not required for travel, was not pre-approved by the Employer for travel, and noted that the grievor should have discussed Nexus with management prior to purchase.

The Departmental representative therefore requested that the grievance be denied, specifying that it should be denied based on timeliness. If not denied based on timeliness, they asked that the grievance be denied nonetheless, as the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive.

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. As such, the Executive Committee was at an impasse.