October 17, 2007
21.4.946
Background
The grievor and other departmental employees travelled to a government site from September 25 to 28, 2006 to attend a training session, conduct field work, and meet with management and other staff. During the same time period, management representatives attended a management meeting and stayed at a nearby Inn. The purpose of management's trip was different from the staff at the site as these employees, including the grievor, were there to conduct field work, participate in a staff meeting and meet with management staying at the Inn.
Prior to the trip, the department informed the employees that it would be purchasing food for all attendees and that meal allowances could not be claimed. The grievor was given the opportunity to personally select the food products.
The grievor submitted a travel claim which included meals and incidentals, which was denied by the department. The grievor is requesting that meals and incidentals be reimbursed as per the Travel Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The bargaining agent representative stated that management arbitrarily decided to change the way it interpreted section 3.3.9 of the Travel Directive. Although deciding to provide groceries may have served the department, this decision prevented the grievor the choice to have meals at a facility or anywhere else, and violated her rights under the Travel Directive. Moreover, there appears to be no reason why management decided to proceed this way as in the past, employees were provided a meal allowance. The only apparent reason would be that the site where the grievor was staying happened to have a fully functioning kitchen.
The bargaining agent representative submitted that management did not meet its responsibilities under 1.5.1. (iii) of the Travel Directive as it did not ”ensure that accommodation of needs is provided to the point of undue hardship.” The grievor advised management prior to travelling that she did not agree with the meal arrangements, but her concerns were not accommodated.
The bargaining agent representative states that meals were not provided to the grievor; instead groceries were purchased which the grievor had to clean and cook in order to prepare the meal. In support of her position, the bargaining agent representative presented the following PSSRB case (166-2-21115) where the arbitrator found:
We must therefore analyze the meaning of the term meal as it is envisaged by these two clauses. In the case of the grievors, the meals were prepared and served to them. Clause 25.02 indicates that "meals normally provided as per clause 25.01 are not available". In the case at bar, the evidence clearly demonstrated that these meals were prepared and served by ships crews. Normally for them meant meals prepared and served by others than themselves. Therefore, for the grievors, to receive meals meant to choose meals from a menu, have it prepared by a cook and served by a steward. The employer did not provide this during the period December 8 to 16, 1989. The fact that food was made available to them from the ship's stores does not fall under the expression "alternative meal" as envisaged in clause 25.02.
The bargaining agent representative‘s position is that management can only change their interpretation of the Travel Directive when a Special Travel Circumstance occurs as per Part IV of the Directive. This was not the case here.
The principles of fairness, flexibility and transparency in particular were violated, according to the bargaining agent representative. The staff staying at the nearby Inn was permitted the meal allowance and those at the site were not. There were no operational requirements that would have stopped management from being flexible in allowing the grievor to claim the allowance. Also, the inconsistent application of the Travel Directive with regards to grocery food lacks transparency and is not in keeping with modern travel practices.
The bargaining agent representative also noted the grievor should not be required to show receipts in this case, as these are not required for meal allowances.
Departmental Presentation
The departmental representative stated it would have been impractical to suggest that the meeting attendees walk 80 minutes to the Inn or use the onsite departmental boat to go to the nearest town to obtain each of their meals. Knowing that there were no restaurants or grocery stores at the site, and that access to another location was only manageable by boat, management undertook to purchase a supply of groceries at no additional cost to the grievor or to the others attending the four day trip.
Section 3.3.9 of the Travel Directive states ”A meal allowance shall not be paid to a traveller with respect to a meal that is provided. In exceptional situations where a traveller has incurred out of pocket expenses to supplement meals provided, the actual incurred cost may be reimbursed, based on receipts, up to the applicable meal allowance.”
The departmental representative continued to explain that although the grievor expressed her dissatisfaction to her supervisor, she nonetheless participated in purchasing the food and supplies needed for the duration of the travel and consumed it over the four days. Further, she had not provided any receipts to demonstrate that she was out of pocket for any meal expenses. The representative outlined the purpose of the Travel Directive is to provide reimbursement of reasonable expenses necessarily incurred while travelling on government business, not to provide income for the purpose of personal gain.
The departmental representative added that, while the managers stayed at the Inn, the grievor was required to lock equipment away in a secure storage area. The Inn did not have such a secure storage area for firearms.
The representative noted that for dinner on the evening of September 27, 2006, the staff at the site and management staying at the Inn held a BBQ event. Both management and employees participated in preparing, cooking and consuming the BBQ. None of the managers were permitted to claim the meal allowance for this dinner.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee report which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive. It was agreed that a meal was not provided as per section 3.3.9 of the Directive, as groceries do not constitute a meal. The grievor was entitled to the meal allowance during the September 25 to 28, 2006 trip with the exception of the dinner meal allowance for September 27, 2006 as a meal was provided. As such, the grievance was upheld.