February 10, 2004
21.4.828
The employee grieved that the employer had never declared a proper workplace to meet the requirements under the Travel Directive. The grievor requested to be properly compensated as per the Travel Directive for travel time, mileage and meals.
The grievor requested that his residence be determined as the workplace for travel purposes, supported by the fact that work effects were kept at home. The employer sought TBS advice and was told that it could not identify the employees' residence as the workplace for purposes of the Travel Directive. The grievor was notified by letter on May 7, 2001 that his temporary workplace would accordingly be the Regional Office. However, some travel claims attached to the file dated after May 7th listed the grievors' residence as the temporary workplace and were reimbursed.
Subsequent claims filed also listing the residence as the workplace were then denied. The employee questioned the employer's decision and consequently grieved the denial.
The employer denied the grievance as untimely and added that the Regional Office was an appropriate designation of workplace as per TBS advice.
The Travel Directive defines "workplace" as:
"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."
On the issue of timeliness, the Bargaining Agent representative stated that, in this particular situation in early April 2002, the grievor became aware that there were still employees in the region who similarly remained on "temporary travel status" who were being paid all benefits and entitlements under the Travel Directive. As the grievor had been denied these benefits and believed that he was entitled to be treated in the same fashion, he filed the grievance.
The grievor, therefore, filed his grievance within 25 days of becoming aware that the rights and entitlements under the Travel Directive were not being applied equally to all employees.
The Bargaining Agent representative informed the Committee that the grievor is a long-time employee of the department. In September 2000, two managers approached the grievor from the Regional Office and requested his assistance in working at the Regional Office. The Regional Office is approximately 32 kilometres from the grievor's home. At that time, his substantive position was at Establishment X.
It was agreed that, effective September 20, 2000, the grievor would start his day at Establishment X and then commute the 32 kilometres to the Regional Office for the rest of the day. For the period September 20, 2000 until November 1, 2000, most days he followed this routine. On November 1, 2000, Establishment X was placed in receivership and closed its doors. All staff were assigned to other worksites throughout in the region. Management, however, requested the grievor to continue to report to the Establishment X for the next two weeks.
This assignment was completed by mid-November 2000 and, after this time until May 2002, the grievor reported directly to the Regional Office. At the end of each month, the grievor would submit his travel claim for 64 kilometres and a meal allowance in respect of travel between home and the Regional Office. This arrangement continued until May 2001 when he received, by registered mail, a letter advising him that due to the closure of his substantive workplace, his workplace had been changed and the effective date was November 6, 2000. This was subsequently changed about a week later, indicating that the effective date would be May 7, 2001.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that this action was wrong, since he had been requested to perform duties at the Regional Office, just as others had and have been since, and that they remained in travel status during this assignment. The grievor had been assured by management representatives that all employees would be treated the same. The grievor accepted these assurances from his superiors.
At the second level of the grievance procedure, the grievor provided information to the employer with respect to a number of different employees who were on travel status, being paid mileage and meal allowances for many months, even years. The employer's response did not confirm or deny the grievor's allegations of inequitable treatment.
In conclusion, the Bargaining Agent representative believes that, because the circumstances surrounding the closure of the plant where the grievor's substantive position existed required that he be assigned to another plant, does not mean that his travel status should have been changed in May 2001. He continued to perform the duties of the assignment and, therefore, should have remained on travel status.
The Bargaining Agent representative is requesting that the Committee uphold the grievance and that, until such time as the grievor commenced performing his duties in May 2002, he be paid mileage and meal allowances as had been granted from September 2000 to May 2001.
The Departmental representative maintained that, on the issue of timeliness, the Regional Director advised the grievor, in writing, that effective May 7, 2001, the Regional Office was his temporary workplace. The grievor waited until April 5, 2002 to grieve this matter, which is well outside the timeframe specified in his collective agreement. In fact, this is 232 days after receipt of the May 7, 2001 notification. It was noted that the grievor is experienced with the grievance process and that the first level reply indicated that the grievance was denied due to untimeliness.
The Departmental representative maintained that the grievor was facing a workforce adjustment situation due to the closure of his substantive workplace. It was necessary to declare a new workplace for the grievor and that was the Regional Office. The grievor was provided with an office and building pass. He conducted work from that location. Management is of the opinion that this meets the definition of a workplace.
The Bargaining Agent's letter of July 24, 2003 indicated that the grievor became aware, in April 2002, that employees in the region, on temporary assignments, were being paid allowances under the Travel Directive. This was indeed a fact; however, those employees accepted assignments away from their substantive workplaces due to a shortage of positions in a number of locations. The grievor chose not to accept an assignment and was assigned a new workplace at the Regional Office. This union's letter was in response to management's letter of July 10, 2003, concerning the timeliness of the grievance. For these reasons, the employer requests that this grievance be denied.
The Executive Committee agreed that the grievance be considered timely.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. The key issue centered on the definition of "workplace" and that defining the Regional Office as the workplace was consistent with the intent of the Travel Directive in these circumstances. Therefore, the grievance is denied.
However, the Committee believes that improved and more timely written communication on the part of the employer to all affected employees might have resolved this issue prior to a grievance being lodged.
The grievance was denied.