October 15, 2008
21.4.964
Background
The employee grieved the department's decision to subtract from his claim for reimbursement, the difference in cost between a 2-bedroom and a 1‑bedroom suite.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The bargaining agent representative stated that there was no extended-stay accommodation listing available for the duty travel location and that the cost of the 2-bedroom suite chosen by the grievor was the same as a 1-bedroom accommodation used by the grievor in the same area while on authorized business travel a few months prior. The bargaining agent representative further stated that this previous claim for accommodation was approved and paid by the department without question.
The bargaining agent representative submitted that the grievor had a pre-travel discussion/meeting with his manager where the issues and personal circumstances of the grievor (i.e. that he intended to drive his PMV and take his family with him) were discussed and documented in good faith.
The bargaining agent representative further submitted that in addition to a good faith pre-travel discussion, the grievor also sought and received the approval of the Relocation/Travel Advisor for his travel arrangements. The Relocation/Travel Advisor confirmed in writing that the grievor's travel arrangements met the intent of the Travel Directive. The bargaining agent argued that it is unreasonable of the department to find after the fact, that the actions taken by the grievor were not sufficient authorization of the grievor's travel arrangements.
The bargaining agent representative argued that given that there was no additional cost to the employer (the cost of the 2-bedroom suite chosen by the grievor was the same as a 1-bedroom accommodation used by the grievor in the same area while on authorized business travel a few months prior), the use of a 2-bedroom suite was not unreasonable. He also argued that there is no requirement to use only the lowest cost accommodation available.
The bargaining agent representative suggested that a 2-bedroom suite is an allowable form of "single room" accommodation under the Travel Directive. The bargaining agent representative provided the results of a search of the current online version of the PWGSC Accommodation Directory which lists "a 2-bedroom suite" as a type of "single occupancy".
The bargaining agent representative also referenced the Accommodation and Car Rental Directory (ACRD) Standing Offer for extended-stay travel. He argued that the specification for a 1-bedroom style accommodation in the Standing Offer is a minimum criterion for suitable "single room accommodation" and does not preclude the use of other accommodation types exceeding the minimum.
Finally, the bargaining agent representative relied heavily on the principles of Trust, Flexibility, Respect, Valuing People, Transparency, and Modern Travel Practices, as expressed in the Travel Directive; specifically flexibility in accommodating an employee, in the grievor's case for the sake of work-life balance.
Departmental Presentation
The departmental representative maintained that as per subsection 3.3.1 of the Travel Directive, the grievor was entitled to a "single room" accommodation, and that while the Travel Directive allows an employee to stay in an apartment for periods of travel of more than 30 consecutive calendar days at the same location, the single room standard still applies.
The departmental representative acknowledged the fact that the grievor had a pre-travel meeting with his manager prior to his departure but argued that the grievor never specifically informed his manager of his intention of stay in a 2-bedroom suite. Furthermore, the travel claim and receipt the grievor submitted to his manager did not specify the type of accommodation he stayed in.
The departmental representative submitted that although the grievor's manager had originally approved the reimbursement of all his expenses, section 1.3 of the Travel Directive clearly states that "overpayments (…) which are not in accordance with the terms of this directive shall be recovered from the traveler as a debt owing to the Crown".
The departmental representative argued that although the grievor may have had the impression that he had pre-authorized his travel arrangements, there is no documentation supporting the fact that he had the intention of staying in a 2-bedroom suite. The fact that the rate was the same as what the grievor had paid during a previous stay in the same vicinity did not support his request for reimbursement of a 2-bedroom suite.
Finally, the departmental representative argued that given that 1-bedroom units were also available at the same hotel, at a cheaper rate, there was no valid reason why the grievor should be entitled to reimbursement of the cost of a 2-bedroom suite.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee and agreed that with respect of the grievor's claim for reimbursement of a 2-bedroom suite, the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive. The Committee agreed that a "single room accommodation" under the Travel Directive means a 1-bedroom type of accommodation. As such, the Executive Committee agreed that the grievor is responsible for the incremental difference in cost between a 2-bedroom and a 1-bedroom suite.
The Executive Committee also noted that the grievor requested and was authorized to drive his private motor vehicle (PMV) to and from the duty travel location but that he did not claim nor was he reimbursed the kilometric rate prescribed in Appendix B of the Travel Directive. The Committee agreed that the grievor was entitled under the Travel Directive to the kilometric rate. As such, the Executive Committee agreed that the department reimburse the grievor the prescribed kilometric rate (minus any reimbursements of gasoline costs) in accordance with Appendix B of the Travel Directive.
Therefore, the grievance was upheld in part.