Meal and Incidental Expenses

The employee grieved the reimbursement, under the Travel Directive, of 75% of incidental and meal expenses incurred from March through August 2003. The grievor is requesting to be paid 100% of incidental and meal expenses incurred from March through August 2003 under clause 3.3.7 and 3.3.9 of the Travel Directive effective October 1, 2002.

The Bargaining Agent representative having briefed the Committee on the details of the grievance, claimed that for the period in question (February 24 to August 1, 2003), the travel after the 31^st day, where the traveler resides at private accommodation, was interrupted on several occasions by annual and compensatory leave, or on assignment to another work zone. Consequently, sections 3.3.7 and 3.3.9 of the Travel Directive do not apply and thus the meal and incidental allowance expenses should be calculated at 100% and not 75%.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the Travel Directive is very clear and precise and does not allow any discretion by management with respect to its application.

In conclusion, the Bargaining Agent representative contended that the grievor should be reimbursed 100% of incidental and meal expenses incurred through May 14, 2003 to August 1, 2003.

The Departmental representative began her presentation by stating that on February 24, 2003, the grievor was assigned to Location X (duty destination) from Location Y (workplace).

At the end of 2002, Location Y announced a temporary shutdown for an indeterminate period. Consequently, from February 24, 2003 to August 1, 2003, the grievor was obliged to perform duties at different locations outside her assigned workplace.

The Department representative argued that during that time, the grievor was always in travel status as per the Travel Directive.

The Departmental representative concluded by stating that when the employee was on annual or compensatory leave during occasions when she returned home, these should not be considered an interruption of relocation and that payment was accorded within the intent of the Travel Directive.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the prolonged travel status period is recognized as one continuous trip/assignment and therefore, the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive.

The intent of the Travel Directive is not to reset the clock (counting of continuous days in travel status) after periods of weekend travel home and/or periods of travel within travel status, unless the accommodation type changes which may affect the level of reimbursement for meals and incidentals. Therefore the grievance is denied.