Commuting Assistance

The employees grieved that the employer violated article 39 and any other related articles of the collective agreement in the payment of the Commuting Assistance Allowance which was revoked as of February 1, 2002. The revocation of the allowance was a violation of the National Joint Council (NJC) agreement. The grievors are requesting to be properly compensated as per the Travel Directive for travel time, mileage and meals.

Employees at Institution X had received the commuting assistance allowance from an unknown date until 1993, when it was discontinued based on the findings of an internal study. In 1997, the grievors became aware of a decision by the Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB), which had ordered the reinstatement of the commuting assistance allowance at Institution Z.

The employees presented their grievance on February 5, 2002, which was denied and transmitted to the second level that same month.

In the spring of 1999, the Department agreed to review the commuting assistance issue jointly with the union for Institution X (and other locations), taking into consideration the above-mentioned PSSRB decision. The review determined (in July 2001) that there was a suitable residential community within 16 kilometres of Institution X and that the allowance would not be reinstated.

The grievance was then denied at the second level on September 26, 2002 and transmitted to the final level soon thereafter.

Section 1.1.1(b) of the Travel Directive states that:

At the outset of the hearing, the Bargaining Agent representative confirmed that preliminary discussions had occurred with the Department in an attempt to resolve this matter. The employer could not, at this time, confirm payment, since they were trying to deal with other decisions of similar ilk.

The Bargaining Agent representative did not present a formal written presentation to the Committee. However, he did apprise the members of certain aspects of the case. According to the Suitable Residential Community Study prepared by the Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) in February 2001, there were 263 lots on which homes could be built. However, the Bargaining Agent representative informed the members that there were no homes built at the time of the grievances – there were only vacant lots. In fact, he was uncertain if there were any homes built to this day.

As he believed that insufficient housing units were available in suitable residential communities to house the grievors, the grievance should be upheld. Consequently, the representative stated that the allowance should be paid retroactively to February 1, 2002.

The Departmental representative was not present at the hearing.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievors had not been treated within the intent of the Commuting Assistance Directive. In accordance with previous jurisprudence, the inclusion of vacant lots in determining the vacancy rate for a particular Institution is problematic, as these potential housing units may never be realized, and were not available for occupancy at the time of the study. Without the inclusion of the vacant lots, there is insufficient housing within the 16 km area to meet the needs of the majority of employees at Institution X. Therefore, the grievance was upheld.

As for the issue of retroactivity, the evidence available regarding the vacancy rate was only applicable to the time of the study. The Committee agreed to retroactivity as of February 1, 2002.

The grievance was upheld.