November 17, 2006
21.4.899
Background
The employee contested the decision of the section head not to reimburse travel expenses for the days he worked in location A from April 1, 2003 until the official opening of the offices in Location B.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The bargaining agent representative maintains that the employer did not respect the intent of the Travel Directive because the purpose of the Directive is to ensure fair treatment for employees required to travel on government business, and the provisions of the Directive ensure that employees do not have to incur additional expense.
The grievor was waiting to move his family to Location B. The expenses incurred at Location A from April 2003 to September 2003 should be considered as additional expenses imposed on the employee because, since September 2001, the Department had twice confirmed to him that his relocation would take place in the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2003, that is, on the same day as the end of his assignment to Location C.
The grievor faced unfair treatment by the Department since the temporary situation of Location A could not be anticipated and was beyond the employee's control. He could not move his family in order to move into Location B as planned.
She concluded that all the grievor was asking for was only the reimbursement of the expenses that had been legitimately incurred as a result of the employer's not abiding by its undertaking to assign him to Location B within the time agreed on in his initial contract of employment, which also was verbally confirmed on several occasions. She also said that it is reasonable that an employee can plan his move, which was impossible for the grievor since the employer was constantly changing the timetable for this.
Departmental Presentation
The departmental representative explained that management clearly communicated in writing each delay in the opening of the office and in so doing repeated to the grievor that he would not be eligible for any reimbursement of his expenses except those related to his work and that this was in keeping with the Travel Directive. The directorate understood and respected his family situation and agreed to his requests for assignment to Location C, while maintaining Location A as his original assignment location.
She explained as well that no opening date for the new office had been confirmed and that the grievor would not be entitled to be helped with his relocation until the new office was opened. As the grievor's original position continued to be at the Location A office, and the headquarters area did not change, management did not consider him to be on travel status.
She also said that the Department considered that the purpose and scope of the Travel Directive were to ensure fair treatment to employees who traveled on business for the government and were not to accommodate employees who, for personal reasons, preferred to be in one place rather than another.
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 the Travel Directive.
The Committee found that the permanent workplace of the grievor was Location A. In a letter dated December 10, 2002, he was informed that his permanent workplace would become Location B on May 12, 2003. According to the documentation provided by the representatives, subsequent written notification was not received until May 26, 2003. Therefore, the permanent workplace was Location B for 14 days (May 12 to 25, 2003, inclusive), thereby invoking travel status at Location A for these same 14 days.
Therefore the grievor is entitled to reimbursement of expenses in accordance with Module 3 and Appendix B and/or C, for the period of May 12 to 25, 2003 inclusive.
The grievance was upheld to the extent described.