February 10, 2004
27.4.48
The employee grieved that the Department violated the Vacation Travel Assistance provisions of the Isolated Post Directive concerning her entitlement to a trip booked on June 27, 2002 to be taken in November 2002. The grievor requested that the Department correctly interpret and apply the relevant sections of the Isolated Post Directive in this case. The grievor also requested that the Department respect its June decision to approve the vacation-assisted trip that was booked over three months prior to her resignation date, which was October 1, 2002.
The employee worked for the Department from 1998 to October 1, 2002. She resigned from the Public Service at the close of business on October 1, 2002. On June 27, 2002 she had requested the 100% accountable VTA (her second of the year), which was approved by the employer on July 3, 2002. The trip was scheduled to take place from November 6 to November 22, 2002. When the employee tendered her resignation on September 16, 2002, to be effective October 1, 2002, the employer informed her that she would have to reimburse the amount approved for the trip as she would no longer be an employee in November 2002.
Section 4.5 of the IPD effective April 1, 2002, Recovery of travel or transportation expenses, deals with situations where employees resign having received any benefits pursuant to section 2.4 (VTA) within the preceding three months if the headquarters has an environment classification of 1 or 2. The amount of these benefits is to be deducted or to be considered a debt owing to the Crown.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that section 4.5 dealing with recovery of travel or transportation expenses quoted by the employer did not apply to the grievor's circumstances. She indicated that section 2.4 – Vacation Travel Assistance does not refer to any clawback or to the fact that there is another section that relates to resignation. The grievor was not relocating therefore she did not consult Part IV as she believed that it did not relate to her situation. She stated that the section is entitled Relocation Upon Termination and alludes to employees relocating at the end of their employment.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated the vacation entitlement in section 2.4.1 merely states that employees in specified remote locations are entitled to two trips as long as they do not resign on or before September 30. The grievor resigned from the Public Service at the close of business on October 1, 2002 therefore, in her view, she was entitled to claim vacation expenses. The Bargaining Agent representative stated that section 4.5 states that if you receive benefits less than three months before resignation they are subject to clawback. The grievor booked the trip and submitted expense claims June 27, 2002, more than three months prior the resignation date of October 1, 2002.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that it was submitted to the grievor that since the employee was no longer employed by the department when she travelled she was not eligible to the full amount of the 100% accountable VTA benefit. The grievor was also advised that if she had applied for the 80% non-accountable VTA, 80% should be based on the full economy (Y class) return airfare between the post and the point of departure that was in effect at the time (September 2002). The Department would have reimbursed the grievor at the lower rate, had the grievor accepted that offer, allowing her to change her option.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor did not apply for the 80% VTA while she was an employee because there was a substantial cut in airfares in September 2002, almost half price compared to June 2002. Had the grievor accepted the Department's offer to take the 80% VTA (as per their interpretation) the amount would have been less than what she had spent on her tickets in June 2002. The IPGHC clarified points related to VTA provisions in a communiqué dated November 13, 2002. Nevertheless, paragraph 2.4.5 of the Directive stipulates that once the choice of VTA is made, it cannot subsequently be reversed; that clause applies to all employees, whether they resign or remain on staff. It was submitted that the Department offered the grievor the alternative to change her option but did not verbalize the proper amount.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the travel agencies that sold the tickets to the grievor would not give her a full or partial refund of her tickets. Therefore, she either travelled with her family or lost her money. She submitted that the Directive did not provide the needed flexibility necessary to financially protect the grievor's interest and did not clearly refer the grievor to the part or section of the guidelines that reflected her particular situation.
The Bargaining Agent asked that the department respect the decision they made in June 2002 to approve the grievor's trip booked three months prior to her resignation. She further stated that in the case this option was no longer available to the grievor and that she would like to benefit from taking the 80% non-accountable VTA at the Y class fare of June 2002 and reimburse the difference to the Crown.
The Bargaining Agent representative concluded that the grievor acted in good faith at all times during her career with the Department. When she booked her vacation she had no idea that she would be resigning.
The Departmental representative stated at the outset that the grievor sought to have the department approve the trip she booked three months prior to her resignation from the Public Service. She indicated that the grievor was living in a location that allows public service employees to take two VTA per year as a result of its environmental classification. For those locations, it is usually understood that the first VTA is to be taken in the first portion of the fiscal year (between April 1 and September 30) and the second trip in the second portion of the year.
The Departmental representative explained that in 2002, the grievor opted for the 80% non-accountable VTA as her first VTA for that fiscal year. She requested her second VTA (100% accountable) on June 27, 2002. Her travel plans extended from November 6 to November 22, 2002 and included return trip from location A to location B, then on to location C. The Finance Department approved her request on July 3, 2002 in the amount of $8,964.16. On September 16, 2002, the grievor tendered her resignation in writing to take effect at the close of business on October 1, 2002. The Departmental representative indicated that extensive consultation occurred and the interpretation of the directive was very clear in that a person must be an employee on the date the benefit is received, in the grievor's case, when she took the trip on November 6, 2002. In correspondence exchanged between the Department and the region on September 27, 2002, it was indicated that if the grievor had opted for the 80% VTA, there would have been no recovery as she would have received the benefit before her resignation. She stated that at the second level of the grievance process the grievor was offered the option of the 80% non-accountable instead of the 100%, which would have meant that she would have paid back the difference between the amount that was approved by Finance and the airfare in effect in September 2002.
The Departmental representative indicated that there was a significant cut in airfare between June/July 2002 and September 2002 which resulted in a difference of $3,592.76.
She stated that the grievor did not agree that the September 2002 rate should apply. Neither did she request a change in option prior to her resignation, which is an option the department might have considered at the time. She cited various sections of the IPD to emphasize the point that the Directive intends to put "employees" in isolated locations on the same footing as employees in non-isolated locations. She stated that the grievor was no longer an employee on November 6, 2002 when she took the trip. Section 2.4.5 of the IPD specifies that the onus is on employees to choose between the 80% and the 100% VTA and that the grievor chose the 100% option while being well aware of the 80% option.
The Departmental representative indicated that the grievor alleged that section 4.5 did not apply to her as she did not relocate. She explained that the grievor did not consult that section of the IPD since it did not apply to her as a local hire. The Departmental representative noted that section 4.5 of the April 2002 Directive became section 4.13 in the April 2003 Directive, but the content remained the same. She went on to say that the application of this section was clarified by the IPGHC in a Questions and Answers document posted to the NJC Web site in October 2003. She emphasized that although the communication was issued after the grievance, the interpretation could not have changed since the language was not amended.
To summarize, the Departmental representative indicated that it is the intent of the Directive, as well as the practice throughout the department and the federal public service, to treat local hires in the same manner as employees relocated to isolated posts. The grievor was not treated differently; she was treated within the intent of the Directive. She received her first VTA under the 80% option, which meant that she knew about that option.
The Departmental representative stated that this grievance and the requested corrective action should be denied.
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Committee. The Committee agreed that the grievor was not an employee and therefore not entitled to be reimbursed for the November trip. As such, the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive and, therefore, the grievance is denied.
The Committee also agreed that section 2.4 of the IPGH Directive should be clarified to include a reference to the recovery of expenses when an employee resigns from the Public Service similar to the one found in paragraph 4.13.2 of the Directive.
The grievance was denied.