July 8, 2005
21.4.862
The employee grieved management's decision not to approve travel claims submitted on June 28, 2001 as outlined in the collective agreement. The travel claims involve travel and related "second residence" costs while seconded to a project during the months of April, May & June 2001.
The Bargaining Agent representative briefed the Committee on the details and timelines of the grievance.
The grievor accepted a promotion, in 1997, to Location A and agreed to commute back and forth between Location A and Location B at the grievor's own cost. In October 2000, the grievor began work on a project at Location A and because of grievor's known desire to spend more time with family at Location B, it was agreed that the grievor would be responsible for cases at Institution X. Travel would be paid on legitimate, work-related travel to Location B.
However, the grievor was advised that management could no longer afford to continue this arrangement and that the assignment to the project would not be extended beyond December 2000. Consequently, the grievor advised management that he/she would remain with the project as long as possible and was prepared to forgo any entitlements to claim for secondary accommodation and incidental expenses while on travel status to Institution X - Location B.
In November 2000, the grievor was advised that management could not continue the arrangement as it was too costly and they were therefore not going to extend the assignment to the project beyond December 6, 2000. Consequently, the grievor stated that he/she would not expect any form of travel reimbursement, if only they would allow him/her to work for the project and with Institution X as his/her primary caseload responsibility. The grievor also stated that he/she would give up residence at Location A and would consider his/her primary residence at Location B. Management subsequently allowed the grievor to stay on with the project with the understanding that the grievor's primary residence was now Location B and he/she would no longer be on travel status.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the issue is the period of April to June 2001 and this was not covered by the agreement. Location C remained the grievor's principal residence, with Location B as the secondary residence until July 2001. The grievor's entitlement remained until the project ended on June 30th, at which time the grievor gave up the principal residence at Location C and moved back to Location B.
The Bargaining Agent representative concluded that the department's claim that Location A ceased to be the grievor's principal residence at the end of March and Location B became the principal residence then is wrong and not supportable.
The Departmental representative maintained that management allowed the grievor to continue on with the project and that the grievor stated in writing that he/she would give up residence at Location A, allowing Location B to become the principal residence. This would mean that secondary accommodation and daily incidental expenses would no longer be an issue.
The Departmental representative stated that the grievor worked for several months under these conditions and there was no re-negotiation of these terms prior to, or subsequent to March 31, 2001. This would suggest satisfaction and continuation of the same conditions for the period in question. Management had no reason to believe anything to the contrary.
The Departmental representative concluded that management acted in good faith by allowing the grievor to continue on the project assignment. Consequently, the grievance and corrective action sought should be denied.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee. The Government Travel Committee agreed that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive. The Committee agreed that at all times during the assignment, the grievor's designated workplace was Location A. The grievor's headquarters area means an area surrounding the workplace (Location A) having a radius of sixteen (16) kilometers centered on the workplace. The grievor is on travel status from Location A to Institution X and remains on travel status until he returns to Location C and/or Location A. Therefore the grievor is entitled to meals, incidentals and transportation (such as ferry tolls) and accommodation. In addition, the grievor also travels from Institution X to the secondary residence at Location B, a distance which is greater than a radius of sixteen (16) kilometers. While at Location B, as per article 3.4.2 of the 1993 Travel Directive, the grievor is entitled to private accommodation in the amount of $50.00 per night, as specified in the June 26, 2000 Communiqué – NJC Travel Directive (Travel Improvements for Represented Employees).
The Government Travel Committee recommended that the grievor be reimbursed travel expenses incurred from April 1 to June 30, 2001, in accordance with the Committee's rationale regarding the intent of the Directive as elaborated above. The Committee noted that the grievor and local departmental management entered into an agreement that resulted in the forfeiting of the grievor's entitlements. The Committee also noted that this practice is not in compliance with the intent of the Directive and its Principles and should be curtailed.
The Executive Committee upheld the grievance.