Entitlement to Kilometric Rates

The employees grieved that the employer had failed to pay mileage from home to work. The grievors requested that the money & all benefits be paid.

In order to reduce expenses, the Department arranged to have a vehicle parked at Establishment X to be used by the employees when traveling between that Establishment and Establishment Y. Before being provided with the vehicle, employees were claiming expenses for travel between X and Y in spite of reporting directly from their residences to Establishment Y and not going to X first which explains the decision to provide a vehicle.

The Bargaining Agent representative began by reviewing the chronology of these grievances. The grievors worked at Establishment Y. In the late 80's and early 90's, the plant partially shut down and all employees, except for about 5, were affected by a Workforce Adjustment situation. The grievors remained at the plant essentially performing processing duties in a complex of processing plants.

In 1993, a federally registered plant in another city in Ontario was added to their duties. Establishment Y remained their substantive workplace and they traveled to the other city on a rotating basis. However, in 1998, it was decided that Establishment X would be their substantive work location and the grievors would continue to rotate between the processing complexes.

This rotation covered a three-month period – one month, they were to report to Establishment X and two months (day or evening shift) they traveled to Establishment Y to perform processing duties. Therefore, at any given time, one of the grievors would be working the day shift at Establishment X, one would be working the day shift at Establishment Y and the third would be working the evening shift at Establishment Y. It is approximately 14 kilometres between the two plants.

For many years, a vehicle had been parked at Establishment Y, for the use of the employees on the day and evening shift to perform their duties. During that time, the grievors would drive their own vehicles to Establishment Y and pick up the government vehicle. In 1999, it was decided to move the vehicle to Establishment X. When the grievors were scheduled to work in Establishment Y, they would drive to Establishment X (their substantive work location) in their own vehicle, pick up the government vehicle and travel to Establishment Y to perform the processing duties. At the end of their shift, they would drive back to Establishment X, park the government vehicle and pick up their own car.

In April 2001, this procedure had to be changed. A memorandum was sent to the staff stating that the car would need to be moved. The plant was undergoing a major renovation and a parking space for the government vehicle was not available.

At the time, there was no permanent supervisor at Establishment X and the grievors, knowing that the car had to be moved, took the initiative and decided, because the car was originally parked at Establishment Y, to move it back there. The grievors were required to perform 2/3 of their duties at various points in the city and were required to use the government vehicle to perform those duties.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievors were of the belief that management was aware that the car had been moved and no one told them to move it anywhere else.

The grievors submitted their requests for mileage and travel time when reporting to Establishment Y, to pick up the government vehicle and in accordance with the Travel Directive, they claimed the lesser rate of the distance between their home, their workplace and the work location to which they were required to report.

The Bargaining Agent representative concluded that no matter where the car was moved, the grievors would have been entitled to some form of mileage and overtime because the car could not have been parked at Establishment X while the renovations were ongoing. It had been parked there previously and it was where the duties were required to be performed. The period being claimed is from April 1, 2001 to December 2001, as stated under section 7.3.1 of the Travel Directive.

The Departmental representative began by raising an issue of timeliness. All three of the grievors filed their grievances on February 26, 2002. It has been an established practice of employees to submit their travel and overtime claims on a monthly basis; however, the three grievors submitted their claims at the beginning of January 2002. Their claims cover the period May to December 2001 and this is clearly well beyond the 25-day time frame specified in their collective agreement (clause 17.09) and the NJC By-Laws.

Based on the merits, it was also noted that:

• Management provided the grievors with a government vehicle to travel between the two Establishments in order to eliminate the need for individual travel claims;
• The grievors were told that they could travel to and from Establishment Y during regular business hours;
• The grievors did not advise management of the letter from Establishment Y requesting that the van be removed from their premises;
• The grievors took it upon themselves to use their own vehicles to travel to and from Establishment Y.

The Departmental representative concluded that this was an improper assumption and that the grievors used their vehicles without authorization, therefore, they are not entitled to mileage and recommended that the grievances should consequently be denied.

A question was raised by the Government Travel Committee with respect to timeliness. The Departmental representative confirmed that it had not been an issue previously.

Questions regarding the existence of a travel expenses log or if the grievors reported to an inspection manager were also raised. The Departmental representative was not aware of any log and stated that there wasn't always an on-site manager.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee report which concluded that the travel claims were consistent with the Travel Directive. Beyond the issue of substance, timeliness had never been previously argued; therefore the employer had waived its rights. With respect to the merits of the case, the Committee agreed that the grievors were not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive and agreed that the grievances be upheld. All monies & benefits are to be paid for the period being claimed (April 1, 2001 to December 2001).

The grievance was upheld.