December 14, 2005
21.4.886
The employee is grieving the department's refusal to reimburse him for a suit jacket which was lost while on travel status on January 18, 2004. Having forgotten the jacket in the hotel room after check out, the employee called another employee staying at the hotel. The colleague's request to get the jacket out of the room closet was denied by the hotel and advised that the hotel would mail it. The employee followed up with the hotel, and received a response that the jacket could not be found and a police report was filed. The employee pursued other avenues with regards to compensation, such as his personal insurance and the Hotel. The grievor maintained that he could have claimed through the Departmental Travel Card had its issuance not been delayed by alleged inactivity by the department. The grievor applied for the card in early December 2003, and left on the trip on January 14, 2004.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The bargaining agent representative explained that Appendix A – guide to insurance coverage for employees on government business travel effective October 1, 2002 provides for reimbursement for loss of personal items, excluding cash, upon receipt of due proof of loss due to burglary of hotel / motel room. The departmental credit card defines burglary as unlawful removal of property from your hotel / motel room involving visible forcible entry. The department's rationale used to deny the grievor's claim was that there was no evidence of forcible entry.
The bargaining agent representative maintained that the stated purpose of the Directive is not only to provide for reimbursement of reasonable expenses necessarily incurred while traveling on government business but also to ensure that employees are not out-of-pocket. Since the grievor is required to wear a suit while performing his duties, his loss necessitated the purchase of another suit, and therefore, resulted in his being out-of-pocket.
In conclusion, the bargaining agent representative asked that the Committee consider the grievor's request in light of the principles and purpose of the Travel Directive and recommend reimbursement of $500 for the loss of the suit jacket.
Departmental Presentation
The departmental representative began by elaborating on the issue of a departmental credit card and whether that would have entitled the grievor to obtain reimbursement for the loss of the jacket. Among the type of incidents described in the guide to insurance coverage, the "Hotel / Motel Burglary" best corresponds to the incident reported by him. The card member would then be eligible for a maximum benefit of $500.00 per occurrence for the replacement of personal items, provided the loss is due to burglary. The departmental representative maintained that the parameters established under the Travel Directive for insurance coverage in the case of loss of personal items in a hotel room are well established. No insurance coverage is provided unless the loss is due to burglary; this is the clear intent of the Directive. Since there was no burglary involved in the incident reported by the grievor, there was no entitlement to insurance coverage even if the grievor had a valid departmental credit card at the time.
The departmental representative concluded that the grievance must be denied and maintained that this type of event falls in the domain of personal responsibilities covered by personal insurance.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the loss of a suit jacket is not within the scope of the Travel Directive. There are no provisions under the Travel Directive to provide reimbursement for the loss of personal items. Therefore the grievance was denied.