Vacation Travel Expenses

The employee grieved that her travel advance requests were held back and/or altered from her original requested amount; that her travel claim had been denied and as a result she had to "pay back" $342.42 of her $1,000.00 advance. She also grieved the current interpretation of section 2.4.4 of the NJC Isolated Post Directive by management and the fact management and/or finance did not resolve her situation in a timely manner (by continuing to go over the same ground over and over again).

The grievor was employed at location 'A'. This location was designated as an Isolated Post and as such the Isolated Posts Directive (IPD) was applicable to the grievor. There are no commercial airports within the headquarters area. The closest commercial airport was located in Medicine Hat, Alberta. The closest pre-established "points of departure" as per the IPD were Saskatoon and Calgary, respectively located at 449 km and 589 km from the grievor's work location. However, local management had established Calgary as the exclusive point of departure. Accordingly, vacation travel expense reimbursements were calculated using Calgary as the point of departure.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor was disputing the employer's interpretation of the provisions contained in the IPD with respect to "vacation travel expenses" and the latest application of that Interpretation, as a result of which management had partially denied the grievor's April 1998 travel claim.

The representative submitted that on January 20, 1997, the grievor filed a travel advance request in the amount of $1000.00, which was processed by the finance section. However, on or around February 3rd, the grievor was informed that her travel advance would be reduced to $600.00 as there were problems interpreting and applying sections 2.4 of the IPD. Having not received the full advance which she was entitled to, the grievor nevertheless did travel for a 2 ½ week period. Upon her return, finance still had not resolved their problems concerning the interpretation and application of the IPD.

Eventually, a worksheet was drafted listing specific values applicable to various employees depending on their specific status. These guidelines were agreed upon in order to process fiscal year 1996-97 travel claims. As a result, the guidelines were used to process the grievor's outstanding claim. Accordingly, since the worksheet, which was established by management, indicated that the grievor was entitled to $1,036.00 (i.e. amount for a public service employee with one dependant living in location 'A') and since that, by virtue of 2.4.4. of the IPD, she was not allowed to recover more than $1,000.00, the grievor was eventually granted her requested 1997 travel expenses.

On October 30, 1997, the grievor requested a $1,000.00 travel advance for an anticipated trip south, which was eventually processed and advanced by management. The grievor went on her trip in the company of one dependant. Due to air transportation availability, the grievor was required t0 fly out from Regina.

Since Regina was not considered a point of departure, the grievor submitted a travel claim in which she identified what she deemed as "reasonable expenses" associated with 2.4.4 (b) of the IPD as being:

• Road Travel to Medicine Hat and return;
• Flight from Medicine Hat to Calgary;
• Meals, commercial accommodation and other associated expenses which would be required if the employee was flying out of Calgary on an international flight (since the headquarters ­Calgary travel time, combined with the required International travel check-in make it impractical to reach the international destination on the same day.)

On April 2, 1998, more than five months after having submitted her travel advance request, management informed the grievor that they would not be following the guidelines, which had been previously agreed to. Rather, in accordance with its "new" interpretation of the IPD, the Finance section informed the grievor that her travel advance would be reduced to $657.58. As such, management required the grievor to reimburse $342.42 of the $1,000.00 advance she had received.

The representative stated that the grievor's claim was based particularly on section 2.4.4 of the Isolated Posts Directive, which reads as follows:

"The amount of expenses reimbursed pursuant to this section shall be the lesser of:

(a) the actual transportation and travelling expenses incurred in travelling by any mode(s) of transportation, from the headquarters to any other location and return, or

(b) the return economy class air fare between the headquarters and the point of departure, ground transportation to and from the airport at the headquarters and the point of departure, and the travelling expenses for any necessary stopovers, due to the airline schedules, between the headquarters and the point of departure."

The discrepancy between the grievor's $1000.00 claim and management's partial denial consists of expenses incurred in Regina (i.e. meal expenses, commercial accommodation expenses and other associated expenses). Management refused to reimburse these expenses because they were not incurred at the point of departure.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that management's position was not reasonable considering the terms of article 2.4.4. Further, admissions. As stated earlier, by management, the headquarters-Calgary travel time, combined with the required International travel check-in, made it impossible to reach an international destination within a day, regardless of the international flight time departure. It follows that, by virtue of the IPD, that management reimburses its public servants for expenses related to stopovers in such circumstances.

In the grievor's specific case however, she did not fly out of Calgary. Rather she was forced to fly out of Regina. She did not do so in order to avoid stopovers and their inherent expenses since she did in fact spend a night in Regina, both on departure and upon her return from her trip south. The representative submitted that the only reason why the grievor made stopovers in Regina rather than Calgary was due to flight availability. Further, the representative submitted that the expenses associated with the two Regina stopovers would have been incurred in Calgary had the grievor been flying out of the Calgary airport on a flight with an international destination.

Under such circumstances, the Bargaining Agent submitted that section (a) of article 2.4.4 which related to "actual transportation and travelling expenses" clearly did not apply. Rather, management had to consider the required expenses associated with "return economy class air fare between headquarters and the point of departure, ground transportation to and from the airport at the headquarters and the point of departure, and the travelling expenses for any necessary stopovers, due to the airline schedules, between the headquarters and the point of departure". Furthermore, management cannot refuse to pay simply because the grievor did not fly out of Calgary, thereby incurring the expenses at a location other than the point of departure. Doing so would be inequitable and would force public service employees to choose their travel destination based on Calgary airport availability rather than personal preference.

Management's refusal to reimburse stopover expenses is all the more questionable since it has adopted a "What-if the public servant had flown out of Calgary?" interpretation of 2.4.4 (b). Furthermore, it has specifically applied this interpretation in the grievor's travel claim when it considered the "hypothetical" Medicine Hat - Calgary air fare quotes in order to pay for the grievor's air transportation costs.

In closing, the Bargaining Agent representative submitted that management examined what air fare expenses would have been incurred by the grievor, had she flown out of Calgary. However, management fell short of carrying its rationale to its normal extension when it arbitrarily decided not to consider the parking expenses, accommodation, meal and other expenses which would have been incurred had the stopovers been taken in Calgary. In his opinion, for all of these reasons, the grievance should be granted.

The Departmental representative stated that in determining the amount to be reimbursed to the grievor in accordance with section 2.4.4 (b) in this case, of the Isolated Posts Directive, the following method was used: travelling cost by car to Medicine Hat, which has been identified as the airport for the headquarters area and then travel by air, economy class, to Calgary.

Management paid the cost associated with travelling between headquarters to the point of departure, from location 'A' to Calgary. These costs include mileage at the employee-requested rate, parking at the airport and air fare from Medicine Hat to Calgary. This method was used since the actual costs incurred by the grievor under 2.4.4 (a) in travelling from headquarters to Regina and continuing to a further location (i.e. an international destination) exceeded travelling costs between the headquarters and point of departure.

The grievor's reimbursement of expenses was based on the ground and air transportation to arrive at Calgary since it is not possible to factor flight schedules/stopovers and so on, because the employee did not leave from Calgary - she left from Regina. She stated that vacations are a matter of personal choice and preference. To expect an employee in location 'A' to pay their own expenses to arrive at Calgary would be considered a financial hardship as a result of the IPD, and therefore these types of expenses are paid by the Department.

The Departmental representative closed by stating that the intent of the Isolated Post Directive is to put employees working at Isolated Posts on an economically equal footing with other employees who do not work at an isolated post location. The grievor chose to go on a vacation south, departing from Regina and, therefore, management paid the equivalent costs as if she had travelled to Calgary as this was the lesser amount of expenses in accordance with paragraph 2.4.4 of the IPD. Therefore, since the grievor was advanced an amount of $1000.00, she must pay back to the employer $342.42, less $34.00 for parking expenses, which have subsequently been granted at the second level of the grievance process.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Committee report which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the full intent of that article to the extent that, in this type of situation, where there is no airport at the post and an employee would be required to drive to the nearest airport and then fly to the point of departure, included in the calculation of the maximum entitlement should be some meals and incidental expenses.

In this case, calculation of the grievor's maximum entitlement should include eight meals for the grievor and her dependent (i.e. two breakfasts, four lunches, two dinners) and hotel costs as well as incidental expenses for two days given the circumstances.

The grievance was upheld to that extent.