April 28, 2005
21.4.870
The grievor requested reimbursement of dependant care expenses (babysitting fees) she incurred while on travel status between March 3 and 5, 2004 (receipts were presented confirming the expenses). The employee was denied reimbursement given that she was not eligible pursuant to Article 3.3.5 (Dependant Care) of the Travel Directive issued on October 1, 2002. For nearly two years, the grievor has resided in Location A, while her spouse resides and works in Location B (approximately 8-9 hours away). The spouse is not a federal government employee and is usually able to come home twice a month.
The Bargaining Agent representative began by providing the Committee background information and specified that the denial of this claim resulted in actual financial hardship for the grievor, and discouraged the grievor from agreeing to any further extension of the acting appointment; it effectively put an end to the grievor's ability to accept further opportunities for advancement in that department.
The Committee was referred to Article 3.3.5 of the Travel Directive, paragraph (a), to the term "sole caregiver" of a dependant child, and noted that the term was not defined in the Directive. Although, the Bargaining Agent representative explained that it was clear to that the clause was intended to ensure that an employee be reimbursed for dependant care expenses where the employee is either a single parent, or, as in paragraph (b): "the claimant's spouse is also employed with the federal public service and both spouses are called upon to travel at the same time". These provisions were intended to ensure that single parents would not face additional financial barriers to career opportunities and advancement which other public service employees might enjoy.
The Bargaining Agent representative requested that the National Joint Council (NJC) interpret these provisions as broadly and fairly as necessary to ensure that provision intended to assist single parents be applied equitably to all those circumstances in which an employee can be "deemed" to be single, including situations of involuntary separation where two parent families maintain separate living quarters for employment, medical, educational, or other valid reasons.
The Committee was also referred to other federal departments who have already provided such equitable applications of their employment-related benefits, amongst them the Income Security Programs Branch of HRSDC and the Canada Customs Revenue Agency. These departments recognized involuntary separation, provided that both spouses lived in separate quarters and duplicate expenses were incurred during the separation. In such circumstances, the employee was treated as though single.
The Bargaining Agent representative requested that the Travel Directive be interpreted as to allow for involuntary separations, including any circumstances by which one individual becomes "solely" or primarily responsible for child care expenses and added that if the Committee could not interpret it in such way, that the Directive be amended to allow for involuntary separation. Not recognizing the grievor to be the sole caregiver would amount to discrimination on the basis of the grievor's marital status.
Alternatively, the Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the NJC could exercise its discretion and determine that fairness in the particular circumstances before the Committee required them to receive this grievance and grant the remedies sought.
The Departmental representative also referred the Committee to article 3.3.5 paragraph (a) and (b) of the Travel Directive, and reported that is was the Employer's interpretation that the term involuntary separation was not equivalent to the term "sole caregiver". In the employer's opinion, the grievor was not the sole caregiver as the grievor was not separated or divorced and that the family still received two incomes. Therefore, this rendered the grievor non-eligible to claim dependant care expenses.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor was not treated with the intent of the Travel Directive, article 3.3.5 – Dependant Care. Based on the facts of this specific case the Committee determined that the grievor was, for all intents and purposes, the sole caregiver as she and her spouse were involuntary geographically separated for economic reasons at the time the expenses were incurred.
Therefore, the grievance was upheld and the Committee agreed that the grievor be reimbursed the amount of $150.
The Executive Committee noted that the term "sole caregiver" was not defined in the Travel Directive and has requested that the Government Travel Committee review this specific issue and make a recommendation for the September meeting.