Travel Status

The employees grieved the fact they had not been paid travel status for working in communities outside their assigned communities as per the travel expense claims they submitted monthly. The employees requested that they be given travel status pay (i.e. $48.85) for each day (i.e. daily expenses) that they worked outside their assigned communities – as per submitted travel claims.

The grievors contended that the NJC Government Travel Directive refers to mobile employees and that a predominant workplace equals their headquarters and in their view, that is location ‘SL', as it is specified in their respective letters of offer.

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievors considered themselves as having accepted positions in location ‘SL'. The representative asked the committee to consider the letters of offer supplied to each of the grievors, and noted that it is stated that the grievors will be required to relive in other locations due to operational requirements. He also noted that both grievors were offered reimbursement for relocation expenses.

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the Employer has by its own actions acknowledged that location ‘SL' is home base for the grievors as the grievors were receiving Isolated Posts Allowances. Further, when the grievors were not working, they were returned to their homes in the NCR. The costs associated with extracting the grievors and returning them to the NCR are born by the Department.

With regard to the Departments use of the word "pool" as in "a pool of positions", the Bargaining Agent representative submitted that there was no such reference in either of the NJC Travel Directive, the applicable Collective Agreements or associated legislation. In his opinion, the "SL" zone does not exist, but rather, was a fabrication of the employer.

In closing, the Bargaining Agent representative restated that the fact remained that the grievors' homes are in the NCR, and as they understood things, they had accepted positions in location ‘SL'. However, they have not worked in location ‘SL', but rather, in other surrounding communities.

The Departmental Representative stated that from an administrative point of view, a pool of relief type positions was established in each "zone" of a given region. In the case of the grievors, the Zone was designated as SL. All positions in the zone were identified as pool positions and were given pool position numbers. Further because they occupied "relief" positions, the grievors have no home base until they are assigned to a community and their home base becomes the community in which they actually work. The home base was not the "SL" zone within which the pool positions were attached, nor was it location ‘SL'.

In the Department's view, the travel Directive did not apply to relief type workers employed in the "SL" zone because they are assigned to one location for a particular time, there is a "break" in the employment, and then they are appointed again at another location. It is not a question of appointing them to one location, which would then become their headquarters and then sending them out to another location, bringing them back to the headquarters and sending them out again. In summary, it is the Department's view that the relief positions' headquarters is the community which they serve, and not the zone.

The Departmental representative noted that throughout the periods of part-time irregular employment, both grievors had been paid Isolated Posts Allowances appropriate to the communities in which they served. He submitted that the Isolate Posts Directive defines "headquarters" as the isolated post to which the employee is assigned. Therefore, by matter of fact, the grievors could not have been on travel status while receiving Isolated Posts Allowances.

The Executive Committee considered the grievances and reached an impasse.