September 14, 2007
21.4.915
Background
The grievor accepted a number of acting appointments in another work location between September 11, 2000 and June 2002. At the time of the original assignment, the grievor was advised that she was not entitled to travel expenses under the 1993 Travel Directive. The grievor again requested reimbursement of travel expenses on April 6, 2004, based on her understanding that other employees had been paid travel expenses in similar situations prior to November 1997. The employee grieved the employer's refusal to pay travel expenses for a claim submitted under the Travel Directive on June 22, 2004.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The bargaining agent stated that the grievor applied for and was offered an acting appointment in ”City B” to begin on September 11, 2000. She worked on an acting basis, with 5 acting extensions overall, until June of 2002 when she became an indeterminate employee in ”City B”.
In April of 2004, the Department cancelled the arrangement they had to allow the grievor to work in ”City A” two days per week. The grievor also learned that other employees were receiving travel while on acting appointments. In response to her request why she was not provided travel expenses while acting, the Department initially had no answer but later replied citing the Travel Directive in effect at the time and also admitting that they may have had failed to properly apply the new Travel Directive to the grievor.
The bargaining agent cited the 1993 Directive definition of Travel Status, and noted there is agreement that the office in ”City B” is more than 16 kms from the grievor's home in ”City A”
The representative stated that the Department's position is they had changed the grievor's work location from ”City A” to ”City B” and had communicated this change through the acting appointment forms, which she signed. This was the Department's rationale for denying the travel claims as of June 2004. Prior to that date, the grievor was not given this reason as she was initially told that there was no money for travel expenses for acting opportunities.
The bargaining agent representative stated this is an attempt by the Department to escape its responsibility for a mistake in not communicating this in a clear and formal manner. Several fields in the acting appointment forms are incomplete and unclear, and while these forms do indicate that the location of the acting position is in ”City B”, nowhere does it state the Department was changing her work location as required by the Directive.
The bargaining agent representative finds the Department has been unable to produce any evidence that they clearly told the grievor that her workplace was being changed and would result in her not being eligible for travel expenses. The Department claims that as management has the authority to re-assign an employee's workplace, the employee was not deemed to be in travel status.”
The representative noted that the Department referred to ”City B” as ”an alternate work location” when explaining the situation to the grievor. This term is defined in the Administration Guide to the Travel Directive issued by Treasury Board and states ”When the workplace is not changed and an employee must report to a location other than the workplace, the employee is entitled to be reimbursed certain travel expenses on a daily basis. If the alternate work location is in another city, and relocation is not desirable, then the employee remains in one of the various forms of travel status, or short term relocation, depending on the duration of the assignment”
In addition the bargaining agent representative submitted that the Department had an obligation to ensure that the directive was available at the employee's normal workplace during the employees working hours. The Department did not have the directive available and was only able to provide the grievor with a copy of it in 2004.
The Department developed its own administration guide as an operational interpretation of the Travel Directive which contains advice on best management practices. This guide states ”an employee can have only one workplace at a time. In order to change an employee's workplace, the new workplace should be formally designated in writing to prevent subsequent problems.” In the case of the grievor, the bargaining agent representative claims this was not done and subsequent problems arose.
The Department failed in its duties under the Travel Directive in effect at the time. It did not provide the Directive in the workplace. It did not clearly and formally advise the grievor that the workplace had changed. In failing to do so, the employee remains entitled to be reimbursed certain travel expenses on a daily basis under the Directive.
Departmental Presentation
Firstly, the representative noted the grievor failed to submit a Travel Authority and Advance form to the employer for approval, as required under Section 1.1.5.
As well, the grievor did not submit travel claims in a timely manner as per Section 1.2.2(f) of the 1993 Travel Directive. In the present case, the travel claim was submitted on May 7, 2004, which is more than a year later than even the grievor's most recent period of travel.
The departmental representative raised NJC decision #21.4.222 to support its position. The employee had sought reimbursement of expenses for the period of September 4, 1984 to August 30, 1985, during which time the employee was reappointed a number of times to work one work location but reported to another. The Administrative Committee at the time agreed that the employee's claim for the noted period had not been submitted within 30 days of the end of the fiscal year (1984) and was therefore not claimable in accordance with article 9.3.2 of the Travel Policy.
The departmental representative submitted management's contention that the grievor was not entitled to the provisions of the 1993 Travel Directive during the period in question, as the grievor received proper notification of a workplace change (Acting Appointment Forms)
The departmental representative cited Fuller and Fryer (PSLRB 166-2-15276, 15277, 16068 and 16069) as well as NJC decision #21.4.672 and NJC decision # 21.4.388.
The representative listed the definitions of Workplace, Travel Status and Headquarters area as well as section 1.1.4 to support its position that the acting appointment forms in fact clearly outline the location of the substantive position; the location of the acting appointment; and the grievor's and management's signatures.
In the present case, the employee was notified both in writing (Acting Appointment Forms) and verbally by her manager that her workplace changed for the duration of the assignment – similar to the cases noted above. Moreover, the grievor was advised that travel would not be paid. This new workplace is where the grievor ordinarily performed the duties of her position during the assignment (as per the Workplace Definition of 1993 Travel Directive). This means that her headquarters area was a radius of 16 km centered on this workplace, ”City B”. As such, the grievor cannot be considered on travel status during the period in question. Moreover, Section 1.1.4 of the 1993 Travel Directive emphasizes ”employees are expected to present themselves at their workplace on their own time and at their own expense”.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee. The parties agreed that the employee was treated within the intent of the 1993 Travel Directive. As such, the grievance was denied.