February 16, 2005
27.4.53
The grievor was on sick leave without pay between March and September 2001. During this time, she applied for travel benefits under section 2.4 (Vacation travel assistance) for a dependant, and these were approved by the supervisor. The grievor submitted an expense claim at the end of the trip, and it was signed by the supervisor. Shortly thereafter, the grievor was informed that she would have to reimburse the money received under section 2.4 as an employee on unpaid sick leave is only eligible for the benefits paid under section 2.1 (non-elective). The grievor filed a grievance to have the overpayment cancelled.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that pursuant to section 1.11 of the 1991 Isolated Posts Directive, employees shall not be entitled to the allowances and benefits of the Directive in respect of any period during which they are granted leave without pay pursuant to an appropriate governing authority. He added that the section was subject to paragraphs 1.16.4 and 1.16.5 of the Directive.
Moreover, paragraph 1.11.2 of the Isolated Posts Directive provides that employees who are granted leave without pay for reasons of illness, injury or maternity shall be eligible for the benefits of section 2.1 and Part IV of the Directive.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that in this situation, he was asking the Committee to apply paragraph 1.16.5 of the Isolated Posts Directive, which authorizes the President of the Treasury Board to continue payment of allowances to those employees beyond that 30-day period during which they are on sick leave without pay.
Moreover, if the employee was not eligible for this isolated posts vacation benefit, why did the grievor's immediate supervisor approve the application on April 28, 2001, knowing full well that the sick leave would exceed 30 days.
In closing, the Bargaining Agent representative indicated that for all the above reasons, the grievance should be allowed.
The Departmental representative added to the facts presented by the Bargaining Agent. In June 2001, the finance unit realized that the payment should not have been made to the grievor since the grievor was on sick leave without pay during the period applicable to the application. A request for reimbursement was then issued to the employee. However, the employee has still not made the reimbursement.
The Departmental representative indicated that since the grievance was filed in 2002, the applicable directive is the one that was in effect at the time, i.e. the 1991 Isolated Posts Directive. Directive Volume 2, section 1.11 covers leave without pay and unauthorized absences, and refers to paragraphs 1.11.1 and 1.11.2.
The Departmental representative also referred to paragraphs 1.16.4 and 1.16.5, focusing on the term compensation. He indicated that these two paragraphs only covered compensation, not benefits. In this regard, he indicated that paragraphs 1.16.4 and 1.16.5 covered compensation specified under Generalities – Part 1, which is to say compensation for environmental issues, cost of living, fuel and public services. There is no mention of reimbursement of benefits such as travel expenses.
The Departmental representative submitted that section 2.1, covering non-elective medical or dental treatment, referred to benefits payable to employees on leave without pay, and in particular that "employees who are granted leave without pay for reasons of illness, injury or maternity shall be eligible for the benefits of this section". He then referred to paragraph 2.1.2, which provided details on benefits approved and underlying conditions.
The representative indicated that since the employee's application was not for dental or medical treatment, section 2.1 does not apply in this case. Hence, he submitted that the employee had not been entitled to reimbursement of the expenses covered in section 2.4 (vacation travel assistance) since paragraph 1.11.2 indicated that employees on leave without pay are only entitled to the benefits listed in section 2.1 (medical or dental treatment).
The Departmental representative closed by recommending that, in view of his analysis, the grievance be denied and the sum of $548.19 that had been wrongly paid to the employee be reimbursed.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the 1991 Isolated Posts Directive given that, as she was on sick leave without pay, she was not entitled to the benefit of section 2.4 (vacation travel expenses). The grievance was therefore denied.
The Committee also noted that discretion to recover debts owing to the Crown rests with the Department under the Financial Administration Act.