March 27, 2002
21.4.792
The employee grieved management's refusal to compensate him while on travel status in accordance with the NJC Travel Directive after the de-staffing of (Location A). The employee requested to be properly compensated for the full period between April 1, 1996 to May 24, 1996, as per submitted mileage claims.
At the hearing, the Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor's permanent work location (hereafter referred to as Location A) was de-staffed. The grievor accepted an assignment to a temporary work location (Location B) for an initial period of one month. During the assignment, the grievor was advised to submit his time sheets and documents to the employer's operation location (Location C).
After the first month, the grievor was offered a deployment to another permanent work location (Location D) but he was asked not to report to that location immediately but rather to remain at Location B for a second month.
At the end of the two months assignment, the grievor filed a travel expense claim for expenses between his residence and Location B for the two-month period. The claim was denied.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor's first permanent work location was de-staffed; that all documentation concerning his employment was handled through Location C; that management clearly identified that the period of time the grievor worked at Location B was a temporary assignment; that management never intended for the grievor to return to Location A.
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor was no longer in his substantive position at Location A from the time he was assigned at Location B to the time he reported to Location D (two months later). The grievor was therefore on travel status and should be reimbursed for the submitted claims.
The Departmental representative noted that at the time Location A was de-staffed, the grievor was asked to identify two work locations where he would prefer to be deployed as a result of the downsizing. The grievor's first choice was Location B, but this location did not have a permanent position available. His second choice was Location D.
For the first month on assignment, as the grievor was not travelling outside his headquarters area, he was compensated according to the Travel Directive in that he was compensated for mileage expenses incurred between Location A and Location B as well as for his parking expenses. According to the Travel Directive, "meals are directed at employees who are in travel status away from the vicinity of their headquarters area".
The Departmental representative elaborated that Location C, where the grievor was asked to forward his time sheets, was used for administrative purposes only and during a time when two components of the organization were being consolidated. The Departmental representative insisted that in no way did this administrative procedure change the grievor's headquarters area, that at no time during the period in question was the grievor assigned to Location C.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor had not been treated within the intent of the Travel Directive for the period of April 1, 1996 to April 28, 1996, based on his temporary work location at Location B, the grievor should be reimbursed the lesser of the mileage from his home to Location B, or from Location A to Location B; the grievor should also be reimbursed for parking during this period. For the grievor to qualify for meal reimbursement, provisions of article 4.3.2 of the Travel Directive must be met.
The grievor was not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive for the period of April 29, 1996 to May 24, 1996, based on the grievor's new work location at Location D, the grievor should be reimbursed the lesser of the mileage from his home to Location B, or from Location D to Location B; the grievor should also be reimbursed lunches and parking during this period.
The Executive Committee agreed to uphold the grievance to the extent described above.