May 21, 2006
21.4.887, 21.4.888
Background
The employees grieved the employer's reimbursement of lunch allowances versus dinner allowances for shifts worked.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that both grievors worked variable shift schedules and were required on occasion to travel to other locations outside their headquarters area. In some cases the travel involved an overnight stay. She stated that the issue is that employees are being reimbursed different meal allowances depending on whether or not they are required to stay overnight even though the hours and time of work are the same.
The Bargaining Agent representative reported that on October 5, 2002, grievor "A" worked from 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. and was paid a dinner allowance because there was an overnight stay and that on October 19, 2002, the grievor worked the same shift hours and incurred the same meal expenses but was paid a lunch allowance as there was no overnight stay.
In March and April 2003, the Bargaining Agent representative mentioned that grievor "A" was required to travel outside headquarters area with no overnight stay and submitted a travel expense claim requesting reimbursement of the dinner allowance, which was denied and amended by the employer to reimburse the lunch allowance.
In May 2003, the Bargaining Agent representative mentioned that grievor "A" was again required to travel outside headquarters area with no overnight stay and incurred expenses for dinners and submitted expense claims which were subsequently denied.
In May 2003, the Bargaining Agent representative noted that grievor "A" was provided a copy of the Bernatchez PSSRB adjudication decision concerning payment of meal allowances during travel status. On May 26, 2003, she noted that grievor "A" had a discussion with his supervisor regarding the reimbursement of expenses for dinner, where the employer mentioned to grievor "A" that he had concerns about his conduct in this matter as he was aware of the amount allowed for meals allowances based on previous discussions.
The Bargaining Agent representative mentioned that prior to reporting to work, a typical day for both grievors consists of having breakfast and lunch at their personal residence and then reporting to their temporary work location and would generally work from approximately 5:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.
The Bargaining Agent explained that the nature of the grievors' work places constraints on reasonable access to meals outside the work premises and limits the time available to purchase and consume a meal. She reported that the work premises only offer "fast food" and food in the dining room and that because the grievors are eating their last meal of the day and wish to eat healthy, they eat at the dining room and order from a "Dinner Menu", a "Lunch Menu" is simply not available at "Supper time".
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the Employer is required under subsection 3.2.9 of the Travel Directive to provide for the reimbursement of meal costs that are higher than the established meal allowance in situations outside the traveler's control. The actual and reasonable expenses incurred must be reimbursed based on receipts. She explained that on a number of occasions, the grievors have attempted to obtain reimbursement of the "dinner allowance" but to no avail and in consequence the Employer's continuous refusal constitutes a violation of the Directive's purpose, scope and intent.
Moreover, she noted that the reference to a meal allowance for shift workers is identical in subsection 3.3.9 for travel status outside the headquarters as it relates to an "overnight stay" and yet the grievors, while on overnight stay, receive the "dinner allowance". She then stated that the employer's application of subsections 3.2.9 and 3.3.9 as it relates to the meal allowances was incorrect. She added that it is clear that if the employer maintains that the reimbursement of lunch allowances for meals taken at mid-shift is appropriate, then, this application should also apply when there is travel with an overnight stay.
The Bargaining Agent representative reported that it is the Union's position that not only does the meal sequence need to be in relation to the commencement of the employee's shift but it also needs to be in relation to the grievors' sequence of meals and their daily routine. She reported that the grievors were in fact purchasing their dinner at "supper time" and as a result, incurred a greater cost for meals.
The Bargaining Agent representative provided a NJC Executive Committee decision – dated March 2001, which concluded that the grievors had not been treated within the intent of the Travel Directive in that the meal sequence should be determined in relation to the traveler's shift. In its decision making regarding the determination of entitlement to meal allowances and incidentals, the NJC Government Travel Committee took into consideration the timing and number of meals taken at home and also the sleeping patterns of the grievors and she presented that the same review and application should apply to these grievances.
In a decision dated September 2, 2003, the Bargaining Agent representative mentioned that the Executive Committee concluded that the grievor was entitled to both a lunch and a dinner allowance and that the meal expense was deemed to be "clearly reasonable and justifiable" in light of the facts of the case. She stated that it was the Union's position that the NJC should review the "reasonableness" of the expenses being reimbursed.
For all the reasons stated above, the Bargaining Agent representative concluded by saying that the Union believes that the grievors were not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive and requested that the grievances be upheld and that the corrective measures requested be granted.
Departmental Presentation
As a clarification, the Departmental representative noted that the shifts begin either at 11:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. and that schedules are determined 6 months ahead of time.
The Departmental representative presented that the supervisor refused the claims as submitted by the grievors and had requested grievor "A" to resubmit the claim because the "dinner rate" was not the appropriate rate to claim in relation to the commencement of the employee's shift. She reported that the Employer advised grievor "A" to amend the claims to comply with subsection 3.2.9 of the Travel Directive, Travel Outside Headquarters Area – No Overnight Stay.
On June 10, 2003, the Departmental representative indicated that grievor "A" re-submitted his travel claim, requesting mileage only for three shifts in question. She noted that the Employer amended the travel claim submitted by grievor "A" to reflect the entitlement to three mid-point meals, at the lunch rate.
The Departmental representative referred the Committee to a NJC Executive Committee decision on Meals – Allowance/mid-shift meal - dated September 20, 2000, where the Executive Committee agreed that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Government Travel Directive in that the appropriate mid-shift meal rate is the luncheon allowance for employees who work non-standard (shift work) hours and are on travel status over the mid point of their shift.
As well, the Departmental representative referred to Bernatchez et al. and Treasury Board PSSRB adjudication decision where it was determined that if the three-meal policy were applied, some workers would receive no meal allowance or a lesser allowance.
In view of the above, the Departmental representative stated that it is the Employer's position that the grievors have been treated within the intent of the Travel Directive as the meals in question were mid-shift and the employees have been reimbursed at the lunch rate. The Departmental representative therefore submitted that these grievances should be dismissed.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee noted that the Government Travel Committee reached a partial consensus on whether the grievors were treated within the intent of the Travel Directive.
The Executive Committee agreed that the applicable subsection of the Travel Directive is 3.2.9. The parties agreed that, based on previous decisions, the grievors were treated within the intent of the Directive in that the appropriate mid-shift meal rate is the luncheon allowance for employees who work non standard (shift work) hours and are on travel status over the mid point of their shift. Therefore, the grievance was denied.
The Executive Committee also agreed that grievors should be reimbursed for actual and reasonable meal expenses, based on receipts when criteria under subsection 3.2.9 paragraph 4 are met.