June 21, 2006
21.4.882
Background
The grievor sought reimbursement of costs incurred under various provisions of the Travel Directive for a house hunting trip and extended travel status.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The grievance contests the fact that the Department refused to compensate the grievor for reasonable travel expenses for a long-term move. The travel and related expenses occurred as a result of an offer, confirmed verbally, of a temporary three-month assignment.
A number of actions by representatives of the Department would have convinced any reasonable person that the temporary assignment and expenses were authorized, and that the formality of providing the documentation would follow.
This was confirmed by the fact that an order had been issued by a manager for a secondment agreement to be drawn up. The grievor also received written messages from managers welcoming her to city ‛B'. This was done before she was notified of the cancellation.
The Department originally provided references, incorrectly, to the Relocation Directive with respect to her assignment. It was explained that the grievor had no reason to believe that the temporary assignment agreement and authorization for subsequent expenses would not be coming and that the written agreement and authorization for expenses would have come after the start of the assignment and the realization of certain expenses.
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the grievor and the managers concerned, the temporary assignment agreement, authorization for travel and authorization for expenses were never drafted or never materialized.
The Bargaining Agent representative claimed that the relevant provisions of the 1993 Travel Directive for extended travel (subsection 5.9) should apply. It was also pointed out that subsection 1.1.6 of the Directive provides for authorization of expenses after the start of the trip if it was not or could not be done before the start of the trip.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that management complied with the provisions of the 1993 Travel Directive. It was argued that the purpose and scope of the Directive had been respected because only reasonable reimbursements and expenses that had to be incurred during government travel are covered.
The project presented to the grievor on December 21, 2001 was conditional on approval by the executive. Moreover, it was mentioned that the assignment was subject to approval by the managers involved since assignment agreements require the signature of the supervisor of the substantive position. It was added that these restrictions were mentioned to the grievor at that meeting and consequently that it was not an assignment agreement, but rather the possibility of an assignment.
The representative concluded that the expenses incurred by the grievor to move to city ‛B' cannot be reimbursed by the Department because the Directive is clear that the traveller must obtain prior authorization from the employer to travel, as per subsection 1.1.5.
No verbal or written authorization was given to the grievor and consequently, the expenses incurred by her to move to city 'B' where the assignment was to have been were never authorized.
A reference was made to subsection 5.9.3, which deals with extended travel. It was mentioned that since no written agreement was signed between the parties, the grievor had no reason to take action and incur expenses to search for accommodation in the city in which the assignment was to take place.
He stated that the grievor's actions to move to city ‛B' were premature and were taken solely on her own initiative. The employer is therefore not justified in any way in assuming the expenses incurred by her since she was not on government service. Referring to several e-mails, he indicated that it is reasonable to conclude that the action taken and the expenses incurred by the grievor were initiated for personal and not professional reasons.
The Departmental representative indicated that management's decision complies with the intent of the Directive and that the grievance and corrective action must be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee was unable to reach consensus on the intent of the Directive in this case. Therefore the Committee reached an impasse.