Meal Allowance

The employee is grieving the employer's decision to deny a meal allowance under the Travel Directive. The grievor requested to be paid for this meal.

The grievor's supervisor informed him that he would have to report to his regular work site (location X) around 12:00 p.m. in order to travel outside his headquarters area, at about 1:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. the same day for a duration of five days, to location Y (temporary headquarters area) to carry out special operations for his work. The day that he was to leave location X for location Y was a day of rest (the second). The grievor was, therefore, on overtime. Following the grievor's departure for location Y, he purchased lunch in his headquarters area and ate it en route. The Department refused to reimburse him.

The Bargaining Agent representative began by stating that the grievor's duties require him to work a variable schedule. In the past, the variability of his schedule has prevented him from taking or obtaining his meals at a set time. To overcome this inconvenience, the grievor now makes sure to obtain them at the start of his shifts so that, at the very least, he is able to have a meal during his working hours if a break is not possible.

On the morning of the trip, the grievor ate his breakfast at home around 9:00 a.m. He then reported to his normal worksite at 12:00 p.m., as requested. After loading the equipment to be used in his work at location Y, the grievor left location X between 1:00 p.m. and 1:15 p.m. He gassed up the vehicle and purchased lunch. Because of the equipment to be transported, the grievor had to take a different route, which did not have a suitable establishment where he could purchase or consume a so-called normal lunch to ensure a safe trip. In addition, locations X and Y are isolated. The lunch was consumed between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. in the vehicle. He then arrived at location Y, after having been on the road for about one hour. At location Y, he attended a meeting scheduled for 3:00 p.m. The grievor arrived at the motel where he would stay for the time that he was in location Y around 6:30 p.m., the time that his overtime ended. He ate his dinner between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.

The Bargaining Agent reasoned that failing to reimburse for the lunch is contrary to the provisions of the Travel Directive. The expenses incurred for the meal are reasonable and had to be incurred as a result of travelling on government business. Further, the Directive provides for a meal allowance for meals consumed away from home on days or portions of days when an employee is on travel status and overnight accommodation is authorized. In addition, the meal was not consumed in the headquarters area but en route. It should also be pointed out that the Directive does not give a specific time at which meals are to be consumed. Another factor to be considered is that there is a sequence of meals that should be considered in this case in relation to the shift and the variability of the grievor's schedule. Moreover, the employer did not specify a period during which the grievor might have been able to eat his lunch. For all these reasons, it is requested that the grievance be allowed.

The Departmental representative maintained that the lunch was not reimbursed because the grievor left the worksite at 1:00 p.m. and was, therefore, within his headquarters area during the normal lunch period.

Reimbursement of the lunch was denied as the grievor did not meet the criteria set out in the Travel Directive. First, under section 4.1.1 of the Directive, the Department cannot reimburse the meal because the lunch was not consumed in a restaurant outside the headquarters area. Even in an exceptional situation under sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 where expenses incurred for his lunch might have been higher than normal, reimbursement is not possible because the grievor's situation is not in keeping with that set out in said sections.

The Departmental representative also cited Chapter 1-3 of the Travel Administration Guide under which it is the responsibility of the employee to provide for meals that he consumes in his headquarters area or within 16 kilometers of his residence, and that such purchases are the employee's financial responsibility. Along the same lines, the representative reiterated that the Directive does not provide for reimbursement of meals taken within the headquarters area at the time of departure or return from travel on government business.

Lastly, the Departmental representative pointed out the purpose and scope of the Travel Directive which are for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses necessarily incurred while travelling on government business, and do not constitute income or other compensation that should open the way for personal gain.

The Executive Committee agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which considered the special circumstances in this case:

• The grievor was required to work overtime;
• He was directed to begin work at 12:00;
• He had to load and depart with equipment by 1:30;
• He had to attend a meeting at the new place of duty at 3:00;
• There were no eating establishments to stop en route;
• The grievor had a variable work schedule and it could not be expected that the he could have a lunch break at 1:00 within the headquarters area.

The Executive Committee therefore agreed that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive as it was determined that the meal expense was clearly reasonable and justifiable in this case.

The grievance was upheld.