Bereavement Travel

The employee grieved that he had been subjected to a misinterpretation of clause 2.3.1 of the Isolated Post Directive. The employee sought reimbursement of bereavement travel expenses to the amount that would have been incurred in travelling to the point of departure and back, that is $1,464.38.

On Thursday, April 16, 1998 the grievor's wife was notified of her father's illness. She tried to book a flight the next day but could not get a seat until Saturday, April 18, 1998 as the plane on Friday was full. Upon her arrival on April 20, 1998 her father had passed away and by matter of fact, the leave became bereavement leave.

On April 30, 1998, the grievor submitted a claim for the full amount of the airfare ($2,198.86) which was processed and paid in full. On May 14, 1998, as a result of an audit, the grievor was informed he was overpaid and had to repay $1,928.86. On May 27, he reimbursed $734.48 to the Department which is the difference between the amount he received ($2198.86) and the amount ($1,464.38) he felt he was entitled to. On June 5, 1998, the subject grievance was filed.

The Bargaining Agent representative asked the committee to consider certain key sections of the Isolated Posts Directive. He stated that one of the objectives described therein was to "provide additional compensation at certain special locations to help offset abnormal cost differentials between isolated and non-isolated locations."

The Bargaining Agent representative cited section 2.3 – (Bereavement travel expenses) paying special attention to the wording which states: " employees ... shall be reimbursed the transportation and travelling expenses incurred in an amount not to exceed the amount that would have been incurred in travelling to the point of Departure and back by mode(s) of transportation used by them." The representative submitted that clause 2.2.1 on compassionate travel and expense also talks about "expenses incurred" but clause 2.4.4 on Vacation travel and expenses is the only one that mentions "actual transportation and travelling expenses".

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the Employer was restricting the meaning of "travel expenses incurred" to what it determined is the "actual" cost of $270.00 shown on an airline ticket. However it was clearly explained by the travel agency that this figure, which forms part of an international ticket, can not be considered the ticket price on its own. Based on the dates travelled, the cost would have been the regular excursion fare. Had the grievor known the Employer's interpretation, his wife could have flown another route, and because she would not have touched down at the recognized "point of departure", the Employer would have reimbursed him the full economy fare of $1,464.38. The same would have been true if the grievor's wife had been able to make the April 17, 1998 flight.

In closing, the Bargaining Agent representative reiterated that the total costs incurred by the grievor were $2,198.86 and that based on the Directive, he is entitled to a reimbursement of $1,464.38, which represents the regular economy fare between headquarters to the point of departure and back.

The Departmental representative stated that the committee must establish whether the Employer should reimburse the grievor's travel expenses at the rate of full return economy class airfare between his headquarters and the point of departure or the actual transportation cost from his headquarters to the point of departure and return.

Having considered article 2.3 of the IPD which addresses bereavement travel expenses and their reimbursement, the Treasury Board Secretariat was consulted by the Department and indicated that section 2.4. of the IPD provided a very different reimbursement of expenses than that expressed in section 2.3 of the IPD.

Section 2.4.4. states: " the amount of expenses reimbursed shall be the lesser of: a) the actual transportation and travelling expenses incurred in travelling ... from the headquarters to any other location, or b) the return economy class airfare between the headquarters and the point of departure. Section 2.3.1 of the IPD (bereavement travel expenses) states: " employees ... shall be reimbursed the transportation expenses incurred in an amount not to exceed the amount that would have been incurred in travelling to the point of departure and back."

The Departmental representative stated that the travel agency confirmed in writing that the travel expenses portion of the airfare international ticket was $270.00 for the transportation leg from the headquarters area to the point of departure and return. The actual airline ticket indicates that the cost of travelling between these two locations is $270.00. This amount, which represents the actual travel expenses incurred by the grievor's wife was reimbursed to the grievor.

In closing, the Departmental representative reiterated that the Department has always reimbursed bereavement travel expenses for transportation expenses incurred in an amount not to exceed the amount that would have been incurred in travelling from an employee's place of work to the point of departure.

The Executive Committee considered the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Committee report. The Committee could not come to an agreement on the intent of the Directive with respect to the issue grieved. Therefore it reached an impasse.