February 16, 2005
21.4.847
The employee grieved denial of a travel expense claim for use of a personal vehicle to travel from Location X to Location Y in order to attend a workshop. The employee sought reimbursement for mileage based on a negotiated amount similar to the practice of another organization where an agreed amount is paid each way based on the lowest airfare. The employee's spouse also intended to accompany him to visit her aging father. As there was no additional cost to the employer and in the interests of accommodating staff and their families, the grievor requested that the negotiated mileage rate be accepted as it was reasonable and fair.
The Bargaining Agent representative referred to paragraph 3.3.11 – Transportation, of the Travel Directive. The representative stated that the employer had taken the approach that the only determining factor in approving transportation is cost and that is but one factor to be considered in approving transportation arrangements under the Travel Directive. The selection of the mode of transportation shall be based on cost, duration, convenience, safety and practicality.
Upon reviewing the new and revised Travel Directive which had came into effect October 1, 2002, it appears that the intent of the revisions was to ensure that the policy was more reasonable and fair.
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the employer had acknowledged that the grievor had compelling family reasons to request the use of his personal vehicle for business travel; this factor did not appear to have carried any weight in the deliberation of the grievor's request.
The Bargaining Agent representative concluded by saying that the elimination of the employee assisted travel rate has created more of a barrier in the new Travel Directive because it does not offer the lower rate. Furthermore, there should be some flexibility worked into the Directive to allow employees living in rural areas to travel by car with their family members and absorb some of the costs themselves.
The Departmental representative presented background information on cost and explained that the estimated cost of travel by personal vehicle for a return trip between Location X and Location Y was $637. In addition, the grievor would have been entitled to travel time at the overtime rate, incurring additional costs for the employer. The grievor's return airfare and ground transportation cost was $373.79. Flight cost was $278.89, including tax.
In referring to paragraph 3.1.11, the Departmental representative indicated that the values in the Travel Directive speaks of trust, flexibility, respect and valuing people; while the Department endeavors to guide its decision-making in a manner consistent with the values, management has an obligation to consider the financial costs of such flexibility.
The employee had clearly demonstrated flexibility in offering to negotiate a mileage rate for ground travel, both management and the bargaining agent had agreed that the intent of the directive was not to encourage the parties to renegotiate entitlements based on individual circumstances.
Under the previous Travel Directive, this committee had rendered the decision that it is the prerogative of the employer to select the mode and class of transportation (21.4.601). As the new Directive had not modified management's authority, it is clear that the grievor was treated within the intent of the directive.
The Departmental representative stated that directing the employee to be authorized to drive in similar circumstances arising in the future would require that the Department deviate from the considerations prescribed by the Directive, and would cause it to absorb travel costs that are unreasonable in the circumstances.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee that the Travel Directive does not allow for managers and employees to negotiate a kilometric rate or alternative allowance / amounts in lieu of prescribed rates. The Travel Directive allows for needs of employee circumstances to be taken into account but must conform to parameters of the Travel Directive.
The Committee therefore agreed that the employee was treated within the intent of the Directive and that the grievance be denied.