January 17, 2001
21.4.786
The employee complained that management was refusing to reimburse him for his kilometrage and parking expenses for the period between November 1996 to January 1998. It was noted that since 1996 the employee had been assigned to a single client in another location and that management had agreed to reimburse him for the cost of travel by public transportation between those two locations (less than one kilometre) but refused to reimburse him for kilometrage and parking.
In summary, the employee was complaining that management was refusing to reimburse him for his kilometre and parking expenses for the period from November 1996 to January 1998. The employee worked at location A. Since 1996 he has been assigned to a single client located at location B. Management had agreed to reimburse him for the cost of travel by public transportation between those two locations (less than one kilometre) but refuses to reimbursed him for kilometre and parking.
The Bargaining Agent explained that from 1994 to 1996 the Department had established an area designated for walking. This meant that employees had to walk when they went to their clients located within that area. Employees who used their vehicles within the area were not reimbursed for any kilometre or parking expenses other than in exceptional circumstances approved in advance by the team coordinator.
In November 1996, management eliminated this designated walking area in order to adhere to the Travel Directive. The Bargaining Agent maintained that, after this was done, management's instructions were not very clear with regard to reimbursement of travel expenses. Although management encouraged the use of public transportation, the grievor was of the view that management continued to apply the principle of the designated walking area in certain cases, while in others it paid for kilometre; this was done on a case-by-case basis.
The Bargaining Agent explained that the grievor was required to travel every day. To that effect, he maintained that management gave the employee an annual travel authority at the beginning of each fiscal year since 1996. The authority indicated that, when the employee was authorized to use a private vehicle, the employer assumed no financial responsibility other than the payment of applicable kilometre. The authority further indicated that the employee was required to hold appropriate car insurance. The Bargaining Agent confirmed that management covered the additional expenses associated with the car insurance.
The Bargaining Agent also maintained that, according to the Travel Directive, employees were expected to present themselves at their workplace at their own expense (section 1.1.4). However, it maintained that the employer had to reimburse employees for their travel expenses when they were asked to report to another workplace, under section 7.3.1, which provides:
"When an employee is authorized to proceed on government business travel from home to a destination within the headquarters area other than the workplace, or from a point of call to the home, transportation shall be provided or a kilometric rate paid for the distance between the home and the point of call, or the workplace and the point of call, whichever is less. The higher kilometric rate applies."
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor used his car to get to work and that he had claimed his kilometre and parking expenses for the period from November 1, 1996 to January 29, 1998, making sure to deduct the amounts previously received for public transportation. The amount was claimed under section 2.11.7, which provides:
"When an employee has been authorized to use and uses a private vehicle within the headquarters area, and the distance driven on government business travel during the day is minimal, the employee shall be reimbursed at least $2.35 for each contiguous work period…"
The Departmental Representative explained that the grievor was a travelling employee who was required to work 5 days a week at his client's office. His workplace was located at location A, less than one kilometre from the client's office located at location B. He reported to the client's office directly every morning and only rarely had to report to location A. In the Department's view, the grievor used public transportation from his home to location B.
The Department argued that the trip between location A and location B took approximately 30 minutes by bus, 20 minutes by subway, and 10 minutes walking. The Department confirmed that the designated walking area was eliminated on November 1, 1996 and that, further to demands by certain employees, temporary measures were implemented in October 1997 to encourage the use of public transportation for all trips downtown. According to the Department, this temporary measure was abused by certain employees who put in claims for bus tickets to get across the street.
The Department confirmed that the grievor retroactively submitted expense accounts for kilometre and minimum parking covering the period from November 1, 1996 to January 29, 1998, for a total of $1,578.42. The claims were rejected because the grievor had not been previously authorized to use his car.
The Department referred to section 1.1.1 of the travel Directive: "It is the prerogative of the Employer to determine whether, when, where, by whom and by what means travel will be undertaken…" and to section 2.1.1, "The selection of the mode and class of commercial transportation shall be made by the employer on the basis of cost, convenience and practicality."
The Department maintained that management had not authorized the employee to use his own car for his trips to location B, that the employee had already put in a claim for bus tickets for the period in question and that he was deemed to have travelled by bus and to have gotten off at the station located at location B, which meant he had the advantage of reporting directly to his client's office.
The Department asked the Committee to dismiss the grievance because, in its view, reimbursing the employee for expenses other than those he had actually incurred would be contrary to the Travel Directive and would open the way to personal gain.
The Executive Committee considered the grievance and reached an impasse.