September 7, 2006
21.4.889
Background
The employee contested the decision by regional management not to reimburse travel (kilometric rates) expenses between home and workplace during his secondment agreements covering the period from December 11, 2000 to March 31, 2002.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor submitted his claim for reimbursement of travel expenses on May 1, 2003. He noted that for the period from April 1, 2002, to July 8, 2002, he claimed 58 kilometres per day, that during that period he was working under a secondment agreement and that on June 19, 2003, he received a cheque for this amount.
He stated that according to the former Travel Directive, employees who choose to travel between their home and their new workplace every day, and who are working under a secondment agreement outside their headquarters area for a period of less than two months are entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses.
The representative added that the grievor was working under a secondment agreement outside his headquarters area at regional office "C" for the period from December 11, 2000, to July 8, 2002, when he was appointed on an indeterminate basis, and that the secondment agreement ended on July 8, 2002.
He noted that the Travel Directive defined headquarters area as follows: "Headquarters area (zone d'affectation) - means an area surrounding the workplace having a radius of 16 kilometres, centred on the workplace."
The representative questioned why the Department imposed the date of April 1, 2002, on the grievor, when employees in a similar situation were reimbursed retroactively to April 1, 2000, and the 25-day limitation period was ignored out of concern for fairness.
He stated that the grievor did not submit claims previously for the period from
December 11, 2000, to March 31, 2002, because he was unaware that he was entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses, since the secondment agreements he signed for that period made no mention of that fact.
Departmental Presentation
The Department's representative noted that in January 2003, after the new Travel Directive came into effect, the finance section of region "X" noted a problem with the secondment agreements under the former Travel Directive. The representative noted that the region, wishing to correct the situation, relied on the legal opinion set out in Déplacement à l'extérieur de la zone d'affectation, a document on travel outside the headquarters area.
The representative argued that the Department is not obliged to grant the corrective action requested for the period claimed, since the grievance does not meet the deadline set out in article 18.10 of the collective agreement.
He noted that the 1993 Directive must be applied in the present case. He argued that the straight-line distance between office "A" and office "C" is 8 kilometres and therefore within the headquarters area. In this regard, he noted that on June 1, 1999, the NJC ruled that the distance of 16 kilometres set out in the definition of "headquarters area" is determined using the "straight-line" method.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of subsection 7.3.1 of the 1993 Travel Directive. The Committee agreed that the grievor should be reimbursed for the respective distance, 6.4 km (each way), for the claimed days during the above-mentioned period.