February 16, 2005
21.4.844
The grievor alleged that management unilaterally chose the accommodation to be used for an escort trip to Location X and then adjusted the employee's travel claim to subtract additional costs incurred when the employee chose different accommodation on arriving at the location. The grievor requested the reimbursement of all of the travel costs incurred.
The grievor, on authority of the employer, had occasion to travel to Location X. The employer chose a hotel recommended in the yellow pages of the "Hotel Directory for Government Employees". As well, the employer surmised that the task at hand should be done at the airport and therefore did not require the employees to be elsewhere.
The grievor, upon arrival at the designated hotel, cancelled the reservation and booked elsewhere. However, this incurred additional costs. The employer modified the grievor's expense statement saying that this change was not authorized.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the choice of accommodation was a unilateral decision by the employer and no consideration was given to the specific needs of the employees on government business. Management's actions did not comply with the "principles of the new travel policy". Those principles state that trust, flexibility, respect and valuing people should be of utmost importance in the proper management of travel situations.
With respect to the specific needs of the employees on government business, the Bargaining Agent representative added that the accommodation chosen by the employer was satisfactory, except for its location. The employee was at the airport. If the grievor wanted to go out for some entertainment or a bit of exercise, the greivor had to incur those expenses himself/herself.
The Bargaining Agent representative observed that the cost incurred by the grievor to travel to the other hotel was less than that for the hotel chosen by the employer. Again, the employer acted unilaterally in imposing accommodation on the employee rather than considering other, more suitable arrangements.
The Departmental representative contended that once the employer decides that government travel is required, the employer decides on the mode of transport and lodging as per the Travel Directive. To elaborate, the following paragraphs of the 1993 Travel Directive were cited:
"1.1.1 It is the prerogative of the Employer to determine whether, when, where, by whom and by what means travel will be undertaken and to select the mode and class of transportation and the accommodation to be used subject to the provisions of this directive.
1.1.2 People travelling on government business, including training, shall be afforded transportation and accommodation that are comfortable and of good quality...
1.1.5 All travel, including the mode and class of transportation and type of accommodation, shall be authorized in advance in writing, on the "Travel Authority and Advance" form, completed in detail, signed by both the employer and the traveller, acknowledging acceptance of the terms of travel, which shall be in accordance with all instructions contained in this directive.
1.2.1 The employer shall:
(a) ensure that this directive is available at the employee's normal workplace during the employee's working hours;
(b) determine whether travel is necessary;
(c) ensure that the selection and acquisition of related arrangements (transportation, accommodation, advances, etc.) are consistent with the provisions of this directive.
(d) when feasible, pre-authorize travel on the designated form; and
(e) verify and approve travel expense claims on the designated form before reimbursement.
3.1.1 It is the prerogative of the employer to select accommodation for travellers. The traveller shall be reimbursed the actual and reasonable expenses for commercial accommodation authorized by the employer. Receipts are required for payments in excess of the private accommodation rate specified of $13.50."
The Departmental representative noted that, following procedure, the employer obtains estimates on the cost of the trip, including a hotel recommended in the yellow pages of the "Hotel Directory for Government Employees". As well, the Travel Directive does not permit flexibility in the personal preferences of employees.
The employer also takes into account the fact that removal work is done mainly at airports and there is no other reason for the employee to be anywhere else.
The employer has respected the intent of the Directive. The employer's main concern is the well-being of the employee, which entails government lodging that is both comfortable and of good quality.
With regards to the grievors' canceling their reservations and booking elsewhere, the Departmental representative believes that this action contravenes the principles of the Travel Policy and undermines the authority and rights of management.
The Departmental representative also noted that two employees were assigned to the escort duties at the airport, for safety reasons, hence agreed that the airport was the location where the duties take place. As these employees do not carry cellular phones, it is fair and reasonable for the employer to contact them at their pre-arranged hotel room telephone number. One employee left the designated hotel room for accommodation in the city centre, which was not the agreement prior to departure, nor conducive to the work to be done at the airport.
The Government Travel Committee could not come to a consensus on the intent of the Travel Directive applied to this situation and, therefore, reached an impasse. The Executive Committee confirmed that an impasse exists.
The Executive Committee noted that grievor also challenged the application of articles 1.01 and 1.02 of their collective agreement. As this matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of the National Joint Council, it was not considered by the Executive Committee.