Travel Directive – Parking

The grievors at Location X were not provided parking spaces and/or paid parking when in attendance at the workplace. They contended that they had not received equal financial benefits as those in other regions where free parking spaces were provided. They also maintained that the employer's local application of the Travel Directive, as it pertains to parking, interfered with the effective management of the grievors' caseloads and placed undue stress on the grievors whose work description is inherently stressful.

The employees requested that management forthwith provide parking either on site or in close proximity to the workplace and at no cost to the employees, and that the retroactive financial inequity is redressed by a lump sum payment (to 1996) to be agreed upon.

The employees requested that management forthwith provide parking either on site or in close proximity to the workplace and at no cost to the employees, and that the retroactive financial inequity be redressed by a lump sum payment (to 1996) to be agreed upon.

Parking for certain employees at Location X has been a contentious issue, which has been raised regularly over the years. The seven (7) grievors' workplace is at Location X and they wish to be provided parking spaces and/or paid parking when working at this location.

The union alleges that the grievors do not receive the same benefits as those in other regions and that the employer is applying a local application of the Travel Directive.

Management made special provisions for the employees to be reimbursed full monthly parking costs based on ten (10) days of travel per month. The provision of full-time parking spaces is not possible given the size of the lot and the parking demands of these grievors and other staff.

Jurisdictional Issue

At the outset of the hearing, the Chairperson advised the parties that the Committee did not have jurisdiction to deal with the application of clauses 1.01 and 1.02 of the grievors' collective agreement.

Bargaining Agent Representative's Presentation

The Bargaining Agent representative briefly outlined the grievors' job descriptions, emphasizing that having a valid driver's permit was a prerequisite. They did not, however, own crown vehicles.

In practise, the grievors did in fact travel on government business during the month, although the Bargaining Agent representative could not specify how many days a month the grievors were on travel status. The grievors could schedule appointments from the office, at home or a combination thereof.

Therefore, the Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the nature of the grievors' work justified having designated parking spots, which should be paid for by the employer. To underline that point, article 7.5.2 of the Travel Directive states that:

In conclusion, the Bargaining Agent representative believes that the grievors do not receive the same benefits as other officers at other locations and that the employer is applying a local application of the Travel Directive.

Departmental Representative's Presentation

The Departmental representative raised a jurisdictional issue, at the outset, maintaining that the employees' allegations that the employer failed to maintain harmonious and beneficial relationships with employees, as per articles 1.01 and 1.02 of their collective agreement, does not fall within the Committee's jurisdiction.

The Departmental representative informed the Committee that all seven (7) employees work out of Location X. The grievors often use their own private motor vehicles for travel to perform their duties. They generally schedule their appointments, which allows for travel arrangements to be made prior to the trip (i.e. selecting the method of transportation). When travel is required, they are on travel status and are reimbursed for the kilometers driven and for the parking fees incurred from both points A and B as per the Travel Directive. Management has never required or expected that the grievors bring their private vehicles to work as a condition of employment. Should that have been the case, parking fees would have been reimbursed or other alternatives would have been explored.

The Departmental representative maintained that there are two (2) issues before the Committee:

• whether management applied the Travel Directive appropriately and consistently; and
• whether management is required to provide free parking on site or in close proximity to the workplace.

With respect to the first issue, section 7.5 of the 1993 Travel Directive is quite clear: "Parking charges are normally not payable when the employee is on duty at the workplace." The grievors have argued that management's application of the Travel Directive is inconsistent, as other officers in the region do not have to pay parking fees. This is as a result of free parking spaces being available (some offices are located in malls where there is ample free parking). In this particular case, the office in question has very limited parking space available (9 spaces in total) and these parking spaces are managed locally and are assigned pursuant to the Treasury Board Secretariat's Guidelines. There is no evidence to support the grievors' arguments that management has applied the Travel Directive inappropriately and inconsistently. Management has always reimbursed parking fees when the employees are on travel status.

With respect to the second issue, there is no provision present in the 1993 Travel Directive requiring management to provide free parking spaces on site.

In conclusion, the department believes that it has applied the Travel Directive appropriately and consistently in this case.

The Executive Committee considered the Government Travel Committee's report. The Executive Committee could not come to a consensus on the intent of the Travel Directive in the circumstances of this case and consequently declared an impasse.