Travel Expenses

The employee grieved that she was not paid for travelling for work related purposes as required "by sec. 370" of the NJC Travel Directive and any other Act, regulation, directive, contract or group specific. She requested that payment be made to her for these amounts plus interest compounded on an annual basis.

From April 22, 1996 to November 24, 1996 (approximately 7 months), the grievor was on secondment. She traveled from her home organization to a host organization and did not receive reimbursement for travel expenses. In November 1996, at her request, the grievor was deployed to the host organization. In or about April 1997, the grievor became aware that the department was providing reimbursement of travel expenses to other employees in similar travel situations. On May 30, 1997, management refused to reimburse the grievor for meals and transportation costs incurred for traveling between her home and her host organization during the period of April 22, 1996 to May 9, 1997 (approximately 13 months) for a total amount of $9,970.06. On June 9, 1997, the grievor filed this grievance.

It was maintained that the grievor was never advised by management that she had been permanently relocated to her host organization and as a result, she reasonably believed that the status quo was simply being maintained, that she was on temporary assignment.

By letter of May 30, 1997, management acknowledged to the grievor that the relocation was not conveyed to her in writing and that she did not receive a copy of the secondment agreement dated April 17, 1996. In a second letter of the same date, management advised the grievor that her workplace was changed as of November 25, 1996.

The Bargaining Agent maintained that it is clear that management realized their failure to properly effect the secondment and the subsequent relocation and were thus attempting to rectify this failure by writing to the grievor on May 30, 1997, more than six months later.

Because of management's decision to arbitrarily change the grievor's workplace, the grievor was not compensated for the increase in travel time, inconvenience, use of personal vehicle costs.

The Departmental representative confirmed that the grievor was on secondment from her home organization to her host organization from April 22, 1996 to November 24, 1996. The grievor's secondment agreement dated April 17, 1996 clearly stated that the host organization would be considered her workplace and that, therefore, she would not be in travel status.

The Department confirmed that, by way of a round-trip memorandum dated October 28, 1996, the grievor requested a permanent deployment to her host organization.

Effective November 25, 1996, a Request for Staffing form was signed by management to relocate the grievor to her host organization, and under section C of the form, the change of workplace was indicated.

By letter of May 30, 1997, management advised the grievor that both she and management agreed to change her workplace. Initially she was on secondment and secondly, her deployment was acknowledged verbally with an effective date of November 25, 1996. A copy of the secondment agreement and the Request for Staffing form was attached to the May 30, 1997 letter since the grievor had advised management she never received either document.

The Departmental representative maintained that the grievor did not submit a Travel Authority and Advance form to her employer for approval. Had the grievor been on travel status, all travel expenses would have been pre-authorized as per section 1.1.5 of the Travel Directive.

The grievor submitted 12 months of claims, 44 days after the end of the fiscal year, when it was her responsibility to submit claims on a timely basis as per section 1.2.2(f) of the Travel Directive:

"The traveller shall ... submit claims that do not involve an advance as soon after completion of travel as possible but not later than 30 calendar days after the end of the fiscal year in which travel occurred. Claims received after that date will only be reimbursed when properly substantiated by the employee and when the employer is of the opinion that the delay was justified."

The Departmental representative further maintained that management did not require the grievor to work in her host organization but rather the grievor approached management to be relocated. Management accommodated the grievor's request. Initially, she was assigned to her host organization under a secondment agreement which clearly indicated that she was not on travel status. Later, she was deployed to her host organization. There was a mutually agreed understanding between the grievor and her employer that she was reporting to a normal workplace.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee report which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive for the period of November 25, 1996 to May 9, 1997 (approximately 6 months) since it was clear that the grievor's permanent workplace was her host organization and therefore she was not on travel status. With respect to the period of April 22, 1996 to November 24, 1996 (approx. 7 months), the Committee agreed that the delay in submitting the travel claim was not substantiated nor justified.

The grievance was denied.