November 6, 2024
21.4.1144
Background
The grievor is an employee with Department A in their City M, Province B office. Beginning on May 30, 2017, the grievor’s Performance Management Assessment (PMA) included a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) with objectives to improve their communication skills and personal competencies related to working effectively with others. On September 25, 2018, management approved the grievor’s Training Application and Authorization forms (GC211) for four (4) evening courses through University X at Campus F between November 2018 and April 2019, including the cost of travel to and from the campus. The objective of these courses noted on the GC211 is leadership skills.
In December 2018, the grievor claimed three (3) of five (5) evening meals in addition to travel time for their November 2018 course. On December 20, 2018, the grievor was advised that the meal expenses could not be approved because they had not been pre-approved. The grievor resubmitted the GC211s to include the three (3) meals per course at the dinner rate. On January 14, 2019, the grievor was advised that the travel costs should not have been included, even though the costs were reimbursed. The grievor maintained that their supervisor had indicated that the travel costs could be claimed as they had been pre-approved. The supervisor confirmed that the revised training forms were not approved. The grievor filed a grievance on January 30, 2019.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the Employer’s decision to not reimburse them for travel expenses as per the Travel Directive with regard to course(s) they were required to take under their Performance Improvement Plan.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative summarized the grievance, noting the grievor’s twelve-year tenure with the Department. The grievor was placed on a Performance Improvement Action Plan (PIP) on May 30, 2017, which included taking external courses to enhance skills and listed examples. The grievor identified suitable courses at University X and requested approval from their supervisor. Since the courses required travel and attendance outside of normal working hours, the grievor submitted this information on the GC211 form, which was approved between September 25 and October 13, 2018. After approval, the grievor registered for the courses as directed.
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the courses required long days for the grievor, who worked from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., then traveled to City X for 6 p.m. classes, and returned to City M at 11 p.m. When the grievor requested overtime on November 27, 2018, their supervisor denied it and suggested considering a refund for the courses if the grievor chose not to continue. The grievor learned from University X that the courses were non-refundable and thus continued with them as instructed.
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the grievor submitted a travel claim for meals on December 11, 2018, which was approved by the manager two days later. However, the unit Director and supervisor denied the claim, stating that meal expenses were not considered in the GC211, and that the Department does not reimburse for night class meals. On December 20, 2018, the grievor resubmitted four (4) revised GC211 forms with the meal expenses, but these were also not approved.
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that there are no suitable educational institutions near the grievor’s headquarters, making travel necessary for skill development courses. The grievor informed the Department about the proposed courses’ details and received approval for them. The representative argued that since the Department directed the grievor to attend courses outside the headquarters area and approved the courses, the grievor was in travel status for these courses, and Module 2 of the Directive applies.
The Bargaining Agent representative argued that the Department’s claim of approving the training as professional development under article 18.04 of the collective agreement is incorrect, as the courses do not meet the definition of professional development. They noted that the Department suggested specific courses in the PIP and only questioned the grievor’s course choices four (4) years later, in the second level decision letter. Additionally, they highlighted that during the third-level hearing, the Department admitted that article 18.03, not 18.04, should have been cited, questioning why this error was not corrected earlier.
The Bargaining Agent representative addressed the Department's claim that it didn't have the chance to pre-approve the meal expenses and that GC211 form approval does not automatically cover additional costs. They argued that meeting the Department’s eventually stated requirements would have forced the grievor to find courses during working hours locally while managing their regular tasks. Since the Department required the grievor to attend non-local courses, it also necessitated travel. They contended that the Department cannot avoid paying for the necessary travel expenses by citing the collective agreement.
Therefore, the Bargaining Agent representative requested that the grievance be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative noted that the grievor, who has been with the Department since November 2010, was on a PIP for 2018-2019. The grievor requested four (4) additional University X courses, which were approved under their collective agreement but were not required in the PIP. The grievor acknowledged in writing on September 25, 2018, that no overtime or extra expenses would be covered for these courses. On November 27, 2018, the grievor sought reimbursement for overtime and meals, but management approved only registration fees and transportation. The grievor chose to continue the courses despite management’s offer to explore refund options.
The Departmental representative explained that the grievor completed the two required PIP courses on December 4, 2018, which were not examples of the type of courses the grievor should complete and was fully reimbursed for them. The grievor’s request for reimbursement for meals and overtime to attend the four (4) additional courses was denied. The representative clarified that these courses were approved under section 18.03 of the collective agreement, not article 18.04 indicated in previous level decisions, and noted that the Department’s expense tool excludes travel, meals, and overtime. Although transportation costs were reimbursed in good faith to honour the Department's commitment, they should not have been.
The Departmental representative reiterated that since the courses were not required by management, the expenses do not align with the Directive’s intent. While article 18.03 of the collective agreement allows discretion in reimbursing reasonable expenses, the departmental tool excludes travel, meals, and overtime. If the courses had been required, all associated travel costs would have been covered under the Directive. However, because the courses were requested by the grievor and outside working hours, the grievor was not on travel status, so the Directive does not apply.
The Departmental representative therefore 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 Directive. The Executive Committee was unable to reach a consensus on this issue. As such, the Executive Committee was at an impasse.