Short term relocation

The employee grieved being paid under the terms of the old Travel Directive rather than the current directive that came into effect on October 1, 2002. The issue is whether an extension of an assignment should be considered a new assignment or a new contract in relation to the NJC Communiqué of September 25, 2002.

The Bargaining Agent representative began his presentation with a synopsis of the circumstances leading to the above-cited grievance and argued that it did not make sense that the grievor should be paid under a directive that was considered inadequate and unfair rather than the new directive that was designed to correct the inadequacies and unfair practices.

The Communiqué on Short Term Relocation dated September 25, 2002, states that the Short-Term Relocation articles 5.9 to 5.11 would be in effect for persons who were on Short-Term Relocation on September 30, 2002.

The Bargaining Agent representative declared that furthermore, the department's Financial Services told the grievor that he would be entitled to the provisions of the new Travel Directive that became effective on October 1, 2002. Also, as of April 1, 2003, the grievor started to report to a different supervisor, doing different duties. Consequently, this should be considered a new assignment and not an extension of previous assignments.

The Bargaining Agent representative also stated that management's decision to extend assignments instead of establishing new ones is an unfair practice. The new travel directive was introduced because the old travel directive was inadequate to meet modern business needs. For a department to still apply this old policy to its employees six months after the introduction of the new policy is a decision that appears to have been based on savings rather than on fairness to employees.

As a final argument, the Bargaining Agent representative stated that if a department applies a policy to one employee, it should apply it equally to all employees. A fellow employee, having lived through identical scenarios, was paid under the new travel policy.

In conclusion, the Bargaining Agent representative requested the Committee to review this situation and correct the injustice.

The Departmental representative began his argument by stating that departmental Accounting Services advised the grievor that as long as the assignment remained the same, the employee does not qualify for reimbursement of expenses under the new Travel Directive, since it is considered an extension of the initial assignment and not a new assignment. The grievor remained under the Short-Term Relocation provisions of the Relocation Directive for the period of April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004, as he was under the same assignment, which started on March 25, 2002.

The question is whether an extension of an assignment should be considered a new assignment (or a new contract) in relation to the NJC Communiqué of September 25, 2002.

In conclusion, the Departmental representative argued that the grievor remained under the same assignment and that assignment ended on March 31, 2004. Consequently, the grievance should be denied.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor had not been treated within the intent of the September 25, 2002 Communiqué on Short Term Relocation, which preceded the new October 1, 2002 Travel Directive. For the purposes of any extensions to existing assignments after September 20, 2002, all such extensions are treated as new assignments and subject to the Travel Directive effective October 1, 2002. The intent of the Communiqué was not to perpetuate extensions to assignments indefinitely under provisions of Directives that have expired.

As such, it was concluded that the grievor should be reimbursed in accordance with the Travel Directive (effective October 1, 2002) for the period covering April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.