June 1, 1999
21.4.644
The grievor is contesting management's denial to reimburse expenses incurred on April 1, 1996. He alleged that this was done in violation of the Travel Directive and was contrary to the management's specific instructions to him contained in his recall letter of February 13, 1996. The grievor requested full payment as per his claim of April 1, 1996.
The grievor is a seasonal crew leader working in location 'A', whose period of employment spread from April 1, 1996 to September 27, 1996. Before the beginning of the season, all crew persons were required to submit to physical and fitness testing in location 'B'. Testing is considered work and the grievor traveled from his normal place of residence to locaton 'B' and then on to location 'A'. It covers the period from March 24 to March 30, 1996.
The Bargaining Agent representative commenced his presentation by stating that on May 1, 1996 the expense claim submitted by the grievor was returned, unprocessed, because the trip claimed was not pre-authorized. The expenses incurred for a Fitness and Physical Fitness test and covered the grievor's travel expenses for the period from March 24 to March 30, 1996 (inclusive):
Personal Motor Vehicle at the employer
requested rate1017.97
Private Accommodation 81.00
6 Breakfasts, 7 lunches, 7 dinners 293.60
Incidentals 24.00
Total:1416.57
Prior to 1996, the grievor was allowed to obtain a medical exam on his own time and choice of physician and there was no requirement for a physical fitness test. In 1996, he expected the usual recall letter to start work as of April 1, 1996.
On February 13, 1996 the grievor received a modified call-back notice and was asked to confirm his acceptance of the offer of employment by March 8, 1996 for a period of employment covering the period from April 1, 1996 to September 27, 1996. Paragraphs 2 and 3 outlined the two changes from previous recall letters: the grievor was advised that a medical exam was required prior to commencing his duties and that he had to complete the medical in location 'B' by a Health Canada doctor who would be on site on March 28 and 29 and from April 22 to 26, 1996. The grievor was to call in and book an appointment. The Department also advised him that they would be administering a physical fitness test to evaluate his fitness level and it would be administered on the same day as his medical.
The representative contended that the grievor interpreted "A medical examination will be required prior to commencing your duties " as being an order from his employer and made arrangements to comply with this direction to travel to location 'B' for the medical and fitness test.
On March 24, 1996, he left his normal place of residence and arrived in location 'B' on March 27, 1996. On March 28 and 29 he completed the medical exam and took the fitness test which were work-related activities. According to the representative, he had no choice in the matter – he was told he had to report to location 'B', when, why and where to report.
On March 30, he traveled to location 'A', his place of duty. On April 1, 1996 he reported to work and submitted his expense claim. After it was denied, he filed the present grievance. His grievance was partially allowed in that he was reimbursed $135.50 for the accommodation and meals for his two-day stop in location 'B', but that was all. His travel expense from his residence was denied.
The grievor's position is that the February 16, 1996 recall letter directed him to report to location 'B'. He did so and filed an expense claim.
In 1997, the grievor paid his own expenses in reporting to work from his residence to location 'A'. The difference between the two years resides in the specific wording of the 1996 letter, paragraphs 2 and 3, which gave him no choice – he had to comply or would have lost his seasonal indeterminate job.
The grievor interpreted the February 16, 1996 recall letter as the employer's authority to travel at the employer's expense and argued that it is a violation of the intent of the Directive for the Employer to direct him, in writing, to report for work and then to refuse approval of an expense claim form of his actual and reasonable expenses for the travel undertaken at their direction.
The Departmental representative first stated that the issue was to establish whether the employer should reimburse the grievor's travel expenses from his residence to location 'A' given that on his way he was required to stop at location 'B' for a medical examination and a physical fitness test.
The grievor has been working for the Department as an indeterminate seasonal employee since the 1991 fire season. He has never been reimbursed for transportation expenses from his place of residence to location 'A' as it is his responsibility to report to work there.
The Travel Directive states that the cost of transportation from an employee's residence to his workplace is the responsibility of the employee. The representative believed that a person traveling from British Columbia has to go through location 'B' to arrive in location 'A'.
The Travel Directive also states that "all travel, including the mode and class of transportation and type of accommodation, shall be authorized in advance in writing on the appropriate form". The responsibilities section is clear in that the traveler shall "obtain prior authorization to travel".
The Departmental representative advised that the Department has never paid travel expenses for transportation from the employee's residence to his place of work and that no other indeterminate seasonal employees was reimbursed travel expenses from their normal place of residence to location 'B'. The only travel expense reimbursement would have been in the situation of an employee already at his place of work and required to travel to location 'B' in order to undertake the specific evaluations.
The grievor was reimbursed for accommodation expenses and related meal expenses while staying in location 'B' to undergo a medical evaluation and a fitness test. The reimbursement of the travel expenses amounted to $135.50, that is; 2 overnight stay (March 28 and 29) and the meal composite allowance for March 29 + dinner March 28, + Breakfast and Lunch March 30, 1996.
It is the position of the Department that there is no indication in the call back notice of February 13, 1996 that management authorized any travel expenses since the grievor must report to location 'A' on his own volution, though the grievor argued that the recall notice was the travel authority and that his colleagues were reimbursed for this type of expense that is: expenses incurred from employee residence to employee's place of work. In fact he has done so since 1991. He was paid his salary for March 29, 1996, the day he had his medical and fitness tests.
The February 13, 1996 call back notice provided the dates to report to work and for testing. Furthermore, the notice indicated that the grievor had to indicate his intentions of returning to his position by March 8, 1996. Management did not indicate that the grievor was on travel status. The grievor did not indicate nor inquire about the reimbursement of traveling expenses as he knew he was not entitled to be reimbursed because it was his responsibility to report for work.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee report which concluded that the grievor was not treated according to sections 1.1.2 and 1.1.4 of the Travel Directive in that the grievor should be reimbursed for expenses incurred to and from location 'B' to location 'A', his headquarters area. As all other employees were allowed travel expenses from their place of work, so should this employee in order to get a medical and fitness approval before starting work on April 1st.
The grievance was upheld.