September 7, 2006
21.4.895
Background
The grievor was on training outside the headquarters area from May 10 to June 23, 2004 and requested reimbursement of meal and incidental expenses.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor was travelling on government business from May 9 to June 23, 2004, in order to take training in city "B".
She reported that the grievor was informed by the Department that employees would be reimbursed for only one return trip every three weeks. She added that for the duration of the training, the grievor claimed only two return trips, in accordance with departmental policy. She stated that participants were entitled to reimbursement by the Department for return trips on two weekends, as well as meal, incidental and accommodation expenses on four weekends.
She added that the disallowed meal and incidental expenses were for the weekends on which the grievor was not reimbursed for a return trip home and that, in accordance with paragraph 3.3.13 of the Travel Directive, these expenses should be reimbursed by the Department.
The representative argued that the grievor was entitled not to stay at the college. On this point, she referred to Public Service Labour Relations Board File No. 166-2-12658, in which the adjudicator had found that the employee was travelling on government business, even though he had stayed elsewhere than at the authorized location, and was entitled to reimbursement of meal and incidental expenses, in circumstances similar to those of the present case.
With regard to allegations that the grievor submitted false claims, she added that if that had been the case the Department could have considered disciplinary measures, which it did not do.
Departmental Presentation
The representative reported that before training began the grievor sent an e-mail message to his immediate supervisor requesting responses to his questions about his stay at the college. She indicated that he obtained responses on April 30, 2004, and added that these questions had to do with matters including: claims for reimbursement of expenses; means of transportation to the college; employee status during the week, on statutory holidays, and during return trips home.
She reported that in the grievor's case, four versions of the claims for the periods were submitted. The representative reported that, according to the examination of the expenses claimed by the grievor, the grievor not only failed to respect the Travel Directive or follow the instructions he had received from the auditors but also signed false statements in the first versions of the claims he submitted.
She added that the fourth versions of the claims submitted for each period were allowed, and the supper expenses for May 28 and June 11 and 18, 2004, were reimbursed.
With regard to the claims submitted for the weekend of May 22, 23 and 24, 2004, the Departmental representative explained that it was ascertained that the grievor travelled to city "C" that weekend.
The representative indicated that the grievor had never previously informed the employer that he wanted to make use of an alternative that weekend. She added that he did not cancel the accommodation at the duty travel location, as required by paragraph 3.3.13 of the Travel Directive.
She explained that, as a result, the Department did not have an opportunity to express an opinion on whether the grievor was obliged to stay in the accommodation at the duty travel location. She specified that, although the middle manager's responses did not specifically refer to the possibility of the employees on training making use of an alternative, the Department considers that persons wishing to make use of such an alternative are responsible for so informing the employer. She stated that the grievor was therefore not entitled to reimbursement of the expenses claimed.
The Departmental representative noted that the grievor was familiar with the instructions about claims for reimbursement of expenses and cannot allege that he did not know about them. She argued that, if the grievor wished to make use of an alternative, he was obliged, at the very least, to so inform his supervisor or manager himself.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated in part within the intent of the Travel Directive. It was noted that the grievor was on travel status from May 9 to June 23, 2004. Although the grievor was not at the travel location during certain weekends, the grievor was still entitled to meals and incidentals in accordance with subsection 3.3.13 of the Travel Directive.
The Committee agreed that the grievor be reimbursed for all meals and incidentals claimed, except for dinner on Sunday May 30, 2004 as the grievor was not eligible as per subsection 3.3.12 of the Travel Directive.
The grievance was upheld to the extent described above.