July 8, 2005
21.4.876
The employee grieved not being paid a dinner allowance while on travel, December 11, 2003.
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor was required to travel from Location X to Location Y.
The grievor submitted a travel authority indicating departure from Location X at 11:30 a.m. and requested that both lunch and dinner be paid. The grievor travelled a total of 400 kilometers (mostly during regular hours of work) arriving at home at approximately 7:00 p.m. On December 23, 2003, the grievor was given a copy of the travel authority confirming that dinner would not be authorized.
The Bargaining Agent representative concluded that since the grievor was on travel status during the period in question, the entitlements were due.
The Departmental representative stated that the only outstanding issue before the NJC Committee was whether or not the Department accurately interpreted the applicable sections of the Travel Directive as they apply to the period of time in question.
With that in mind, the Departmental representative briefly outlined the timelines involved.
The department concluded that, the grievor is not entitled to claim a dinner meal allowance. Management had preauthorized the payment of two (2) hours of overtime for the grievor on December 11, 2003, as it had been determined that the designated mode of transportation would arrive on or about 18:30 that evening, and the two hours of overtime would cover this extra time, beyond the normal workday ending of 16:30.
Unfortunately the transportation carrying the grievor and her co-workers, left Location X after the predetermined time of 13:00, stopped for a short break around 16:00 and ultimately arrived at Location Y between 18:30 and 18:45. The grievor indicated on the Travel Expense Claim Form that a cab was taken with co-workers at 18:45.
The Departmental representative acknowledged that it takes approximately eight (8) minutes to travel the designated distance to the grievor's residence, but in this instance, a co-worker was dropped off prior to the grievor. It was, therefore, reasonable to assume that the grievor arrived home before 19:00.
All applicable expenses and/or allowances, applicable to the grievor, as a result of work related travel from 5:00 a.m. on December 9, 2003 to 18:30 on December 11, 2003 inclusive, were paid in accordance with the applicable Travel Directive and the Program and Administrative Services Collective Agreement.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee. The Government Travel Committee found that, upon consideration of a number of factors such as the Travel Directive's principle of flexibility, the grievor's hours of work, core work hours, commuting patterns and travel status, the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive.
Meal allowances are entitlements for employees on travel status, unless meals are provided (article 3.3.9 of the Travel Directive). The Committee has determined that the grievor was on travel status until she returned home on December 11, 2003. In this case, the department pre-determined that there would be no payment for dinner on that date. In so doing, the department mistakenly interpreted article 1.1.2 of the Travel Directive as defining travel entitlements. However, the purpose of this article is "...to ensure all travel arrangements are in compliance with the provisions of this directive." The pre-authorization process, including the discussion between the employee and the manager as well as the completed, duly executed Travel Authorization and Advance form does not supplant the entitlements of the Travel Directive while the employee is on travel status. The Government Travel Committee recommended that the grievor be paid the applicable dinner entitlement for December 11, 2003.
The Executive Committee upheld the grievance.
The Executive Committee noted concerns with respect to the resources required to process a grievance where the issue is limited to a minor payment for a single grievor. The Executive indicated that the General Secretary should be mandated in future cases of this type to work with the two side secretaries to determine whether settlement of the grievance may be possible without recourse to a full committee hearing process.