Travel Mileage

The employees grieved that the NJC Travel Directive was contravened because they were not reimbursed for mileage as per their claim. The grievors requested that they be paid all moneys (sic) owed to them in regard to the use of their vehicle as per their submitted claims.

Grievances: 21.4.655, 21.4.656, 21.4.659

The grievors worked at location X and were subsequently sent to work out of location Y. They later returned to location X. The period of time spent at location Y varied from 6 months to 2 years and one month.

Grievor 21.4.655 left location X in April 1995 and returned after March 31, 1997. Grievor 21.4.656 left location X in April 1995 and returned after May 2, 1997. Grievor 21.4.659 left location X September 24, 1994 and returned March 25, 1995.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the issues of concern are should these individuals be compensated for travel expenses and, if so, is the January 1, 1996 "cut off date" reasonable.

According to the Bargaining Agent representative, the employees in question were asked to assist another work unit and were therefore on assignment to that unit. They were not informed that their permanent workplace had changed. Therefore, they are entitled to reimbursement in keeping with Travel Directive 7.3 .

Also, it was noted that the Department did not deny the grievors were entitled to reimbursement of kilometric rates for travel within Headquarters.

Rather the grievances were denied because the "rationale" for accepting the January 1 "cut off date" was considered reasonable and they were judged to be untimely (e.g. not lodged within 30 calendar days after the end of the fiscal year in which the travel occurred).

The Bargaining Agent representative contends that in the memo of February 17, 1997, the Department's intent was to "right a wrong". As stated in the memo, the Department "determined that all assignments of a temporary nature are subject to the National Joint Council Directive on local travel and employees are entitled to be reimbursed expenses incurred in accordance with that directive". The "wrong" did not commence on January 1, 1996. Therefore, it is not reasonable to limit the period of reimbursement to a start date on January 1, 1996.

The Bargaining Agent representative tabled an e-mail entitled Arrears - Travel Claims. The message stated: "…This will serve as official notice that all travel claims dealing with arrears travel (January 1, 1996 to February 28, 1997) for on loan, and or assignment travel…must be received … NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS DAY, FRIDAY APRIL 11, 1997".

The Bargaining Agent representative noted that in this instance the Department was willing to deal with claims submitted beyond the normal 30 day period after the end of the fiscal year in which the travel occurred. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable for the Department to waive the 30 days maximum in these grievances.

The Departmental representative agreed that the issues at stake in these grievances were whether the grievors' assignment was considered a change of work location and the Department 's decision to establish January 1, 1996 as a reasonable cut-off date for reimbursement of travel claims related to temporary assignment.

The Departmental representative stated that the Department advised the employees verbally at the beginning of the assignments that their workplace would change for the duration of their assignment and that this constituted a permanent change in workplace.

The Departmental representative contented that because the new location (Y) was within headquarters (8.5 km), there was no additional cost to the employees by accepting this assignment. Further, paying these travel expenses would result in financial gain for these employees, which would be contrary to the Travel Directive.

Finally, the Travel Directive does not identify a duration of time in which an assignment qualifies for reimbursement. Rather, it is left "to the Department alone" to determine whether an employee's work location should be changed. In these cases, the Department advised the grievors that their workplace had changed for the duration of their respective assignments. This was considered by the Department to be a permanent change.

Under Travel Directive 1.2.2(f) , the Department has the discretion to allow payment of claims beyond that time frame which is normally no later than 30 days after the end of the same fiscal year in which the travel occurred.

The Departmental representative noted the following. After commencing a review of practices related to "temporary assignments" in January 1996, and having been advised that "all employees on temporary assignment were subject to the provision of the Travel Directive", the Department wished to have its employees treated in a fair and equitable manner. The Department used its discretion and thus chose January 1, 1996 as the earliest date from which local travel expenses would be considered, a date which coincided with the beginning of the review exercise. Choosing January 1, 1996 was therefore a reasonable decision.

Grievance 21.4.657

The individual worked at location X. In 1993 he was moved to location Z. The individual worked at location Z for more than 6 years, during which time he was promoted (1997), and never returned to location X.

The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the rationale he applied to 21.4.655/656/659 held for this case as well. The difference is one of location and date but not of substance.

The Departmental representative stated that the major issue in this case concerned whether the grievor was eligible to receive travel expenses considering his situation.

The Department maintained that since the grievor's workplace had changed, he was not entitled to receive a reimbursement of travel expenses as outlined in article 7.3 of the Travel Directive.

Grievance 21.4.660

The grievor worked at location X. The work unit was informed (verbally) that they would change location. Meetings were held and the employees were asked to vote for their preferred new location, Y or Z. Location Z was chosen. The grievor moved to location Z along with the entire unit. A few months later, due to an increase in staff (60 new employees), the Department decided to relocate the group to location Y. The grievor was aggrieved because she had not been advised of the change of workplace through a formal letter.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the focus of this case is primarily the manner in which the grievor was informed of the change of workplace. As stated in the Travel Administration Guide, Administrative Procedures, ch.1.3, " a change in workplace should be designated in writing". The Department did not do so.

As in 21.4.657, the Departmental representative stated that the major issue in this case concerned whether the grievor was eligible to receive travel expenses considering her situation.

The Departmental representative stated that the Department believed it had acted in good faith. It had consulted employees regarding the initial move. In fact, it was the employees' feedback which determined the new location for the work unit. Consequently, no official letter was provided.

The Department did not conclude that it must provide a letter, nor that failure to do so would lead to having to compensate an employee for his or her travel. At the present, the Department does provide employees with such documents.

The Departmental representative summarized his presentation on all the grievances. The Department contended that the grievors were not entitled to travel expense reimbursement for the following reasons.

Prior to January 1, 1996, the Department had correctly applied the Travel Directive. The advice given to the Department during the review exercise (which gave rise to the February 17, 1997 memo) was erroneous. Therefore, the "new" practice adopted by the Department, while in keeping with the February 17, 1997 memo, was not consistent with the intent of the Travel Directive. The Department is now applying the Directive in a manner consistent with the intent of the Directive.

Under NJC Travel Directive 1.2.2(f) The Department has the discretion to determine a cut off date. In these grievances, the Department availed itself of this discretion and did so in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.

The Travel Administration Guide 1.3 provides the Department with 3 factors to consider when determining a change to workplace: 1) the length of the work period; 2) the additional costs imposed; and 3) the salary level of the temporary assignment.

Acting on erroneous advice, the Department based its decision solely on the length of the work period ("e.g. temporary").

Finally, the Department had advised the grievors at the time of their assignment that this was considered a permanent change of work location.

The Executive Committee could come to no decision as to the intent of the Travel Directive in these cases. Therefore, the committee reached an impasse.