July 3, 2007
21.4.916
Background
The employee was on a temporary assignment from October 18, 2004 to April 8, 2005, and submitted travel claims for the period of October 18, 2004 to December 15, 2004. The employee contested the department's failure to respond to his travel claim dated December 9, 2004. The grievor requested to be reimbursed according to the Travel Directive, including interest.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The bargaining agent representative explained that the grievor selected the highway route as it was the safest practical road available. This road placed the assignment location at 19km from the headquarters office, therefore invoking travel status.
The representative stated that the department previously reimbursed employees who traveled the same route, as it was measured as 18km by the department up until January 2005.
The representative submitted that the department's decision not to reimburse the employee was based solely on the consideration of the most direct urban route, ignoring safety and practicality. To support this, several studies were submitted, indicating highway travel is recognized as safer than urban street routes. Also, urban streets were deemed riskier, having more unpredictable events, and costing more to the department in time and kilometric rates.
The representative indicated that the department ignored its responsibilities under the Canada Labour Code and other guidelines with respect to the safety of its employees.
The grievor himself measured the distance in a verifiable manner and exhibits were presented to indicate the distance between the headquarters office and the assignment location was 19km. The route had the fewest intersections.
The bargaining agent representative indicated the notice of workplace change issued by the department on September 17, 2004 is irrelevant as the assignment location was outside headquarters area.
Departmental Presentation
The departmental representative indicated the nature of the work of the grievor requires him to be mobile as he needs to conduct onsite inspections. As there are numerous locations the inspectors are required to visit, the department maintains a listing of these locations and their distance from the main office. The list is updated regularly, but routes do change, which explains why some travel claims in the past were reimbursed. Prior to each travel, employees are asked to check the list; as of April 2007, the distance to the location in question was listed as 15 km, which is within the headquarters area. The departmental representative explained managers update the list by going out on the road and actually driving the distances and recording the kilometers.
The representative stated the employee chose to travel via the 19 km route, but was unnecessary as the department's route was just as viable. The road conditions encountered while driving the department route are all normal; all roads have some degree of traffic and unpredictable factors. As well, all roads are safe and practical, and if they were not, Transport Canada or the provincial government would have closed them down.
The representative agreed that websites are not 100 % accurate, but that it is the only tool available to measure distances other than going out on the road itself. Unfortunately, there was no manager present when the grievor measured the distance with his odometer, and likewise when management measured their distance.
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 Government Travel Directive. The Committee maintained that all elements within the definition of headquarters must be applied when selecting a route (direct, safe, and practical). In determining such a route, a suitable test would be to consider which route a fire truck or taxi might take to reach the same destination. As such, the grievor is entitled to reimbursement of expenses in accordance with Module 2 for the period covered by the travel claim (October 18, 2004 to December 15, 2004).
The grievance was upheld to the extent described above.