Travel Expenses

Background

Three employees grieved management's denial of their travel claims, and also of the inconsistent manner in which the Travel Directive is applied.  The grievors are requesting payment for travel from home to their temporary worksite, until they are offered permanent positions, and that they have proof that the directive is implemented fairly for all employees.

Bargaining Agent Presentation

The Bargaining Agent representative reported that in January 2002, the Department initiated a competition for a position classified EG-04, that the three grievors applied for the position and were offered an opportunity to act in the said position during the rolling-out of the competition process.  

In a letter dated April 18, 2002, Grievor "1" was informed that his work site was temporarily changed from Establishment "A" to Establishment "D" and the distance between the two workplaces was approximately 36 kilometres.  The agreed acting assignment period was from April 22, 2002 to July 19, 2002 (3 months).

In July 2002, Grievor "2" was offered an acting opportunity for an EG-04 position for the period of July 22, 2002 to August 2, 2002. 

The representative reported that in an e-mail dated October 7, 2002, the grievors were formally advised that their travel claims were denied and that they should resubmit them accordingly. She noted that she was unable to get the particulars to Grievor "3" travel claims.  However, she clarified that the concern at issue was the same for all grievors.

She further noted that on July 30, 2004, the grievance was partially upheld at the 2nd level.  The representative mentioned that the April 1, 1993 Travel Directive was applicable in this instance

She submitted that the Department provided a notice of change of workplace simply to avoid paying the travel expenses to the grievors. She also stated that the Department throughout the years has not applied this policy consistently.  She mentioned that other employees in similar circumstances have been provided with full travel expenses.

The representative maintained that the grievors' substantive position remained at the initial location earlier noted.  As such, she concluded that the grievors were on travel status of less than on day for the entire period of September 2002.

She mentioned that as grievor "1"'s assignment was some 50 km away from his headquarters area, he meet the requirements of the Travel Directive in order to be compensated for his travel mileage and meals.  She stated that the same logic applied for grievor "3" has the distance between both work locations was also some 50 km.  As for grievor "2", she reported that the distance was some 14 km. 

Departmental Presentation

The Departmental representative reported that all three grievors' assignment location were changed to the same new Establishment "C": on July 20, 2002 for grievor "1", on July 22, 2002 for grievor "2" and on July 29, 2002 for grievor "3".    

She reported that the grievors, in addition to being reimbursed the travel expenses from September 1, 2002 to September 9, 2002, were also reimbursed for any work related travel other than from home to the temporary workplace for the total period of their assignment.

She indicated that the Directive allowed for the temporary change of workplace when this was formally designated in writing, even if the new workplace fell outside the headquarters area of the employee.  When the workplace was so changed, she offered that the employee was not entitled to travel expenses between home and the new workplace and she mentioned that this was confirmed in the Travel Administration Guide, Chapter 1-3, in the definition of workplace.

She mentioned that in a February 10, 2004 NJC grievance decision related to a change in workplace, the notification of a change in workplace met the intent of the Travel Directive, as the employee conducted work for the new location and had been formally advised of the temporary work location.

She submitted that the Committee should therefore be guided by the previous Committee decisions on this issue, as well as the Travel Administration Guide that was issued by Treasury Board to assist in the administration of the Travel Directive.  She then mentioned that the Committee should also be considering the following adjudication decisions, such as 166-2-26582 and 2002 PSSRB 27, which support that the intent of the Travel Directive was respected as the adjudicators reviewed the definition of workplace and found that temporary assignments could result in a change of workplace for the purposes of the Travel Directive.

Executive Committee Decision

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievors had not been treated within the intent of the 1993 Travel Directive.  It was agreed that based on the assignment dates as presented and that the short acting periods were frequently renewed, the grievors' permanent workplace was where their substantive positions were located.

Grievor 1 – The Committee agreed that the grievor was in travel status and was entitled to reimbursement of appropriate meal expenses as per subsection 4.2.1 and higher kilometric rate as per subsection 2.11.4 for the period September 10 to September 30, 2002.

Grievor 2 – The Committee agreed that the grievor was entitled to the higher kilometric rate for the period September 10 to September 28, 2002.

Grievor 3 – The Committee agreed that the grievor was in travel status and was entitled to reimbursement of appropriate meal expenses as per subsection 4.2.1 and higher kilometric rate as per subsection 2.11.4 for the period September 10 to September 30, 2002.

The grievances were upheld to the extent described above.