October 27, 2004
21.4.845, 21.4.846
21.4.845: The employee grieved management's decision not to reimburse full travel expenses while on travel status outside the Headquarters Area given that the employee maintained a residence in the designated travel area. The employee requested reimbursement for travel expenses as per the 1993 Travel Directive and that Management apply the Travel Directive for meals, private accommodation and incidentals.
21.4.846: The employee grieved management's decision not to reimburse the rate of private accommodation under the 2002 Travel Directive while on travel status outside Headquarters Area. The employee requests reimbursement for those legitimate expenses incurred.
The grievor has two residences in two different cities - one in Location X and the other in Location Y. As an area counselor, the grievor's assigned geographic area encompasses Location X.
The grievor is required to travel within an assigned zone, as such the employee maintains entitlement to the private accommodation allowance, meals and incidentals for authorized travel undertaken to meet with clients within her assigned zone as she is required to travel more than 16 kilometers from her workplace.
Management acknowledged that reimbursement of the private accommodation expenses had been reimbursed in error in the past. As the grievor was only notified of the correct interpretation of the Travel Directive on September 12, 2002, management agreed to reimburse private accommodation allowance that occurred before that date.
The grievor was also reimbursed travel expenses such as mileage, car rental, gas for work related travel when she was more than 16 kilometers away from the second residence between September 12 and October 1, 2002.
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that there are two outstanding grievances. The first involves entitlements under the Travel Directive (1993), while the second involves the same entitlements, under the new Travel Directive (effective October 2002).
1. The first grievance was filed as a result of exclusion for the amounts of private accommodation, meals and incidentals from travel expense claims in July and August 2002. Management, however, acknowledged that reimbursement of the private accommodation expenses had been paid in error in the past and were therefore partially upholding the grievance.
This did not completely satisfy the grievor, who wished reimbursement for all legitimate expenses. In fact, the grievor was seeking payment of expenses claimed for July and August 2002, which had been previously paid until September 12, 2002, the date on which the grievor was notified of the correct interpretation of the Travel Directive. The payment of private accommodation only partially upheld the grievance and the bargaining agent, on behalf of the grievor, was now seeking to have the grievance fully upheld.
2. The second grievance was filed as a result of management's denial of the grievor's travel claims for October and November 2002.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the most current Travel Directive (2002) makes no mention of second residence and, in fact, there is no reference to a second primary residence either.
The Bargaining Agent representative cited a number of additional changes to the Travel Directive, which are meant to enhance the grievor's entitlement to private accommodation, meals and incidental expenses:
The principles of the new travel policy as enunciated in an NJC Communiqué dated June 26, 2000; certain definitions, including Private Accommodation, Travel Status, Permanent/Regular; and section 1.1; 3.3 Module 3-3.3.1 & 3.3.7 of the Travel Directive.
In conclusion, the Bargaining Agent representative wished the Committee to clarify what travel expenses the grievor was entitled to claim.
The Departmental representative began by briefing the Committee on background information regarding the grievor:
In considering the employee's grievance at the first level, management acknowledged that reimbursement of private accommodation expenses had been paid in error in the past. They concluded that since the grievor was only notified on September 12, 2002, of the change in interpretation, the changes would only take effect from that date. Consequently, the grievance was partially upheld in the first level grievance reply. This decision to reimburse the private accommodation allowance is reflected in the approval of two amended travel claims. To this extent, it is the employer's position that the reimbursement of private accommodation raised in the grievance has been satisfied.
On December 10, 2002, the grievor transmitted a grievance to Level 2 of the NJC grievance procedure. In the second level reply dated May 26, 2003, the NJC Departmental Liason Officer noted that the employer's representative at first level, agreed to reimburse the grievor for the private accommodation. To this extent, the grievance had already been satisfied. During the period of travel in question, the grievor stayed at Location Y private residence and the Department agreed to reimburse the grievor for meals taken at a distance of more than 16 kilometres from that residence. Given these facts, the Departmental representative was satisfied that the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Travel Directive that was in force prior to October 1, 2002.
The Departmental representative noted that in both travel claims, the grievor indicated Location Z as the residence address and Location X as continuing to be maintained as a home. This is a change from all previous claims.
In the present matter, the Departmental representative maintained that the Committee has two issues to determine:
1. In relation to the first grievance, the issue to be determined is whether or not the grievor was treated within the intent of the former Travel Directive? In respect to this determination, private accommodation is the only issue being raised in the employee's grievance. Examining any other issues such as the meal allowance or the incidental allowance would have the effect of altering the grievance.
2. In relation to the second grievance, the issue to be determined is whether or not the grievor was treated within the intent of the new Travel Directive? More specifically, was the grievor entitled to private accommodation, incidentals, breakfast and dinner while residing at Location Y?
In order to make a determination on the first issue, the Departmental representative cited paragraphs 1.1.3; 1.2.2; 1.10.1; 4.1.1; and 4.6 of the Travel Directive.
Based on these definitions and the relevant provisions of the directive, the Departmental representative submitted that the dwelling at Location Y is indeed the principal or primary residence of the grievor.
The Departmental representative referred the Committee to the Clarke Decision rendered by the PSSRB (166-2-13543). In this decision, the grievor whose headquarters was the Fredericton Office, maintained apartments in both Fredericton and Moncton. When the grievor was posted temporarily to the Amherst office, which is within commuting distance of Moncton, he claimed he was on travel status and was entitled to claim accommodation expense at the non-commercial rate. The adjudicator indicated the grievor must be away from his home and Headquarters to be on travel status, and "home" included a second residence. Mr. Clarke's grievance was therefore denied. In our view, this decision is precedent setting and should apply to the grievor's grievance.
In order to make a determination on the second issue, the departmental representative cited the principles of the new travel policy as enunciated in an NJC Communiqué dated June 26, 2000; the Purpose and Scope; as well as pertinent definitions of the current Travel Directive.
In conclusion, the Departmental representative maintained that the grievor is being reimbursed for any real costs incurred related to her travel associated with visiting clients in the area of Location Z. The grievor is, in fact, authorized as day travel on those days and is reimbursed accordingly. This is fair, reasonable and consistent treatment. To provide the grievor with anything more than the allowable expenses for a day trip would result in personal gain, which would be in contravention of the intent of the Travel Directive. Consequently, the grievor has and is being treated within the intent of the Travel Directive.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee regarding grievance 21.4.845 which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the 1993 Travel Directive. It was agreed that there had previously been an error in paying the grievor with respect to meals and associated allowances in such circumstances and that management's subsequent decision not to continue to pay was consistent with the intent of the Directive. The Executive Committee denied the grievance.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee regarding grievance 21.4.846 which concluded that the employee had not been treated within the intent of the 2002 Travel Directive for the following reasons:
- the grievor's principal residence was in another location;
- when the employee was outside the headquarters area (16 kilometres), she was on travel status;
- in this case, the grievor was actually 120 kilometres from her headquarters area on travel status.
It was agreed that the private accommodation rate and all travel expenses under Module 3 of the 2002 Travel Directive should apply. It was also noted that there was no evidence the grievor was travelling at any time under Module 2 status of the 2002 Travel Directive. Therefore, the Executive Committee agreed that all aspects of Module 3 of the 2002 Travel Directive be respected. The Committee upheld the grievance.