January 17, 2001
21.4.777, 21.4.778, 21.4.779, 21.4.780
The employees grieved the employer's refusal to compensate them for travel expenses during their assignment at the Warehouse in Montreal, for the following dates: … (the dates vary for each complainant). The employees requested to be paid for their travel expenses in keeping with their collective agreement (NJC Policy Vol. 2, Travel Directive 7.3.1).
The employees who worked at location A are occasionally assigned to location B for periods that vary from one day to one month. Management was refusing to pay the kilometrage between those two locations (9.5 km) when the employees were assigned for periods of four weeks or more that are scheduled in advance since, in its view, location B became their new workplace.
The Bargaining Agent explained that the grievors were asking their employer to cover the transportation expenses incurred during 1997 and 1998 when they were asked by their employer to travel from time to time from their usual workplace.
The Bargaining Agent explained that location B was a small, temporary office, that employees were assigned there on a rotating basis for 4-week periods, and that, although management prepared the schedules a year in advance, the employees were only informed 4 weeks in advance.
The Bargaining Agent referred to the definition of "workplace" in the Travel Directive:
"the location at or from which an employee ordinarily performs the duties of his or her position and, in the case of an employee whose duties are of an itinerant nature, the actual building to which the employee returns to prepare and/or submit reports, etc., and where other administrative matters pertaining to the employee's employment are conducted."
The Bargaining Agent maintained that the complainants' usual workplace was in fact location A. They returned there at the end of their rotation, they have always kept their furniture and their personal belongings there, their pay cheques are administered there, all administrative matters are dealt with there, and they continue to receive their instructions from the managerial staff at that location.
The Bargaining Agent maintained that the complainants were obliged to accept their assignments at location B and that they performed the work they normally did at location A. He maintained that section 7.3.1 of the Travel Directive applied:
"When an employee is authorized to proceed on government business travel from home to a destination within the headquarters area other than the workplace, or from a point of call to the home, transportation shall be provided or a kilometric rate paid for the distance between the home and the point of call, or the workplace and the point of call, whichever is less. The higher kilometric rate applies."
The Bargaining Agent also raised the inconsistency in the application of section 7.3.1 of the Travel Directive, indicating that, during the same periods, other employees assigned to another location were reimbursed for their travel expenses.
The Departmental Representative explained that the employees working at location A were advised that mobility was a prerequisite for holding such a position, that they are assigned to location B on a rotating basis for periods of approximately one month, that employees received a copy of the assignment list at least 4 weeks before their assignment starts, and that the list of assignments was posted at the workplace.
The Department maintained that, when employees are assigned to location B, it became their workplace and they were not entitled to travel expenses since they were on assignment and not on government travel. The Department was thus of the view that section 7.3.1 of the Directive did not apply.
The Department maintained that management has the right to change the employees' workplace. It continued by indicating that, since it does not set out a specific period for which an assignment would entail reimbursement of travel expenses, the Travel Directive gave management the discretion to determine whether the employee's workplace needed to be changed for the assignment period. Management used 3 factors to determine whether a change of workplace was involved: the length of the assignment, the additional travel expenses, and the employee's salary.
The Department also noted that the employees filed grievances in May and July 1998 for assignment periods between May 1997 and March 1998. Although management was of the view that there was no reason that would have prevented the employees from submitting their claims within the prescribed time frames if reimbursement was being contemplated, it did not raise this aspect and accepted the grievances in 1998.
The Department confirmed that employees who were assigned to location B for one or two days that had not been scheduled in advance are reimbursed for travel expenses.
Finally, the Department asked the Committee to dismiss the grievances on the grounds that the employees were on assignment, that their workplace had been changed during the assignment period and that the employees had been advised of this at least 4 weeks in advance.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee's report, which concluded that the grievors were not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. In the Committee's view, because of the length of the assignments and the nature of the work, being assigned to the warehouse did not constitute a change of workplace. In these circumstances, section 7.3.1 of the Travel Directive applied.
The grievances were upheld.