September 7, 2006
21.4.891
Background
The grievor has contested the decision by regional management not to reimburse his kilometre expenses during his secondment agreements covering the period from October 22, 2001, to March 30, 2002.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor submitted his claim for reimbursement of travel expenses on March 24, 2003. He noted that for the period from October 22, 2001, to June 27, 2002, he claimed 6 kilometres per day, and that during that period he was working under a secondment agreement.
The representative 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.
He noted that the Travel Directive defined headquarters area as follows: "Headquarters area - 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
October 22, 2001, to June 28, 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.
He added that, since the grievor's first assignment lasted between two and four months, he considers himself entitled to reimbursement of expenses for travel between his home and the train station in city "D", since he was reimbursed for public transportation throughout his assignment. The representative reported that the grievor also claimed reimbursement of meal expenses and incidental expenses for the period from October 22, 2001, to March 18, 2002.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental 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. He 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 Departmental representative referred to point 9 of the terms and conditions section of the acting assignment, which indicate that the grievor " [Translation] ... may, on presentation of vouchers, be reimbursed for rail and subway transportation expenses incurred in carrying out her duties ... (to a maximum of $100 per month)", which indicates that management was in agreement.
The Departmental representative argued that the Department is not obliged to grant the corrective action requested for the period claimed, since the grievance did not meet the deadline set out in article 18.10 of the collective agreement.
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 subsections 4.2.1 and 2.11.4 of the Travel Directive.
The grievor was entitled to the reimbursement of the lunch meal rate as well as the reimbursement of the higher kilometric rate for the respective distance, 6.4 km (each way), for the claimed days during the above-mentioned period. However, the Committee concluded that the Travel Directive does not provide an entitlement for incidental expenses in the grievor's circumstances.
The grievance was upheld to the extent described.