Travel Directive – Mileage Rate

The employees grieved that their requested use of a personal vehicle to attend a conference at Location Y on March 24 to 26, 2003 was denied. They also grieved the fact that family members were not able to travel in Government vehicles. The employees requested that, in the future, the employer consider the employee's family needs while traveling on government business and approve the use of a personal vehicle when requested.

The grievors were required to travel from their headquarters to Location Y to attend a conference held in March 2003. Since the conference coincided with March break, they submitted a request to travel together by personal vehicle so that their children could accompany them. Management denied the request on the basis that there was a government vehicle available. Management also denied a subsequent request on the basis that flying was the most cost effective method of transportation and was safer than driving at that time of the year. Finally, when the grievors offered to drive their personal vehicle at their own cost, management refused the request on the basis that the employer has no room to renegotiate entitlements based on individual circumstance.

The Bargaining Agent representative briefed the Committee on background information regarding the grievors.

The manager advised the grievors that the employee rate had been eliminated and that the employer had to ensure that the most cost effective means of travel was utilized. The manager added that the grievor's proposal to cover the costs herself seemed reasonable, but that management was concerned about liability. This was the first time that liability was mentioned as a potential issue.

Management sent another reply to Grievor A, recommending that she and Grievor B not be permitted to use a personal vehicle, even at their own cost because travel by car from Location X to Location Y, in March, was dangerous. Flying was cheaper and would incur the minimum hotel, meal and incidental costs.

Grievor A responded that she did not intend to claim travel expenses, only for time spent. Management then advised Grievor A that if she were to take her own car, the employer would have no choice but to reimburse her the kilometric rate as stipulated by the Travel Directive and added that flying was both safer and more economical.

The Bargaining Agent representative referred the Committee to paragraphs 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 of the Travel Directive and indicated that the Travel Directive does not clearly stipulate that the employer shall assume responsibility in the case of an accident involving the personal vehicle of an employee.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the employer's interpretation has led to a situation where rural employees are routinely being denied a right that is available to urban employees. As well, this interpretation makes no concessions to the needs of parents and caregivers, or to work-life balance. If the elimination of the employee requested rate spelled the end of the right to use one's vehicle for government business, then why is the use of a personal vehicle alluded to in the Directive at all? By limiting employees to the use of the employer's vehicle when travelling for work, the employee no longer has the right to have any say in the form of travel taken. This was not consistent with the values and goals set out in the Directive.

The Bargaining Agent representative cited the Alberta Dairy Pool case. Then referred to paragraph 3.3.11 – Transportation of the Travel Directive; the selection of the mode of transportation shall be based on cost, duration, convenience, safety and practicality.

The employer had acknowledged that the grievors had compelling family reasons for requesting the use of a personal vehicle for travel purposes but was bound by the revised Travel Directive, which stipulated that the most cost efficient form of travel must be used. The cost was but one factor to be considered in approving transportation arrangements under the Travel Directive, along with other factors like convenience and practicality.

Even if cost was the only determinative factor in selecting the mode of transportation, it was the grievors' position that use of a personal vehicle would have been more cost effective than flying. Since the two grievors were prepared to share a private vehicle, only one would have been able to claim for kilometres. Flying would have cost the employer approximately $680 for the two grievors vs $352 for reimbursement of the kilometric rate.

Ultimately, the grievors used the government vehicle in order to attend the conference. The elimination of the employee assisted travel rate has created more of a barrier in the new Travel Directive as it does not offer the lower rate.

In closing, the Bargaining Agent representative indicated that while the Travel Directive was meant to be flexible, in this instance, the employer did not apply the directive in a logical, flexible manner that respected the needs of its employees. Therefore, the grievors were not treated within the intent of the directive and, consequently, their respective grievance should be granted.

The Departmental representative began by briefing the Committee on departmental policy – family members are not permitted to travel in departmental vehicles unless there is an emergency situation.

It was indicated that the department had difficulty interpreting the Travel Directive and the policy; ultimately, management determined that the employees would not be approved for travel by personal vehicle, as travel by departmental vehicle was more cost effective.

The Departmental representative stated that management had acknowledged that, in the second level reply to the grievance, the decision failed to properly address the criteria set out in the Travel Directive. By considering only cost, management failed to consider convenience and practicality, as set out in paragraph 3.1.11. Moreover, the values established in the preamble to the directive were not given proper consideration; the grievance was partially allowed based on this acknowledgement.

Notwithstanding, the cost of travel remained a legitimate consideration in determining the mode of transportation to be approved and management remains responsible for determining the appropriate mode of transportation. The employees requested a corrective action that would have the effect of creating a blanket policy that would not respect the intent of the directive, and bind management's ability to determine the most suitable mode of transportation. The use of personal vehicles approved based on employees' request would create an impractical situation where other considerations such as cost, duration, safety and practicality are made subordinate to convenience.

The Departmental representative closed by stating that the appropriate decision should have considered all of the factors and that it was impossible to revisit management's decision. However, there is no entitlement which has been wrongfully denied to the employees. Consequently, the department submitted that the Committee should find the second level response appropriate and that future decisions on mode of transportation should be made by management, following full consideration of all the factors set out in the Directive.

The Executive Committee considered the recommendation of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that that the employees were not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. The Committee further agreed that the decision rendered by management in this grievance did not take into consideration all six guiding principles as outlined in the Directive. The Committee also noted that the Department and employees failed to meet their responsibilities under articles 1.5 and 2.2.7 of the Directive.

The Executive Committee did not recommend any corrective action as the Department had already addressed the grievors concerns by recognizing that it had misapplied the Travel Directive and had taken measures to ensure that this situation would not reoccur. The Committee emphasized that, as per the Travel Directive, an open comprehensive dialogue between the employee and manager shall occur on all travel arrangements. This places an onus on both parties to be fully informed on the issues.

The grievance was upheld.