Meal Allowance

Background

The employees grieved the refusal of a meal allowance while on "travel status" on their last day of travel. 

Bargaining Agent Presentation

The Bargaining Agent representative reported that the issue was whether or not the grievors are entitled to be in "travel status" on their last day of travel and have their meal allowance compensated for their dinner of September 24, 2004, following their return at 14:26 p.m., since travelling between Atlantic and Pacific times is 4 hours difference.  To clarify, she put forth the following question: Are employees entitled to the full meal allowances when travelling across time zones?  She explained that there was no evidence that management advised the grievors not to incur a meal allowance for their last day on "travel status".

The representative stated that she believes that the Department unreasonably denied the meal allowance without taking into consideration the grievors' circadian clock, which remained 4 hours ahead.  She submitted that the grievors are subject to the Travel Directive, deemed to be part of the collective agreement and that the grievors should have been allowed the dinner allowance, as per subsection 3.3.9.

She noted that it appeared that the Department seeks to save monies since they reimbursed meal allowances for two other employees but denied the same compensation for the two grievors, who travelled the same route, worked, ate and slept in the same "Atlantic Time" zone.  She therefore submitted that pre-determining no payment for this last meal allowance for two out of 4 employees is not equitable and brings the Travel Directive's intent of subsection 3.3.9 into question.

Departmental Presentation

The Departmental representative reported that on September 24, 2004, the grievors were returning from a trip to city "B".  He noted that both grievors indicated in a written submission that they left their respective hotel rooms in city "B" at 7:00 to catch their 08:50 flight.  He added that the grievors reported to have arrived home, in city "A" at approximately 19:00, Atlantic time, after a connection in city "A". He explained that given the 4 hour time difference between Atlantic and Pacific times, the grievors arrived home at 15:00 Pacific time. 

He also referred to subsection 3.3.9 and noted that nothing in the Travel Directive speaks specifically to meal entitlement through time zones.

The Departmental representative elaborated on when the grievors arrived home, it was 15:00, local time and that this is not generally considered as usual dinner time.  He mentioned that both grievors reported that they did not have enough time in city "A" (with the connection) to have a meal and that they had dinner after they arrived home in city "A" and signed a statement to that effect.

He submitted that neither one of the grievors had dinner while on travel status on September 24. He added that it is evident that they were not forced to eat out as a result of their travelling on government business: they rather made the personal choice to order prepared food.

Executive Committee Decision

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievors were not treated within the intent of subsection 3.3.9 of the Travel Directive.

The factors considered by the Committee in this situation were the duration of travel time and the specific time of travel based on the originating time zone.  Given that the elapsed travel time of 12 consecutive hours occurred during a specific time period (7:00 – 19:00 Atlantic time) when 3 meals would normally have been consumed, the Committee agreed that the grievors were entitled to the dinner meal allowance on September 24, 2004 as claimed.

The grievance was upheld.