Transportation and Travelling Expenses

The grievor sought reimbursement of transportation and travel expenses incurred for therapy treatments of a dependent.

The bargaining agent representative argued that the school authority saw fit to assess the grievor's child and referred the child for medical attention. The grievor's child was seen by a physician in her place of residence who recommended treatment for the grievor's child at a medical clinic in an another city. The certificate of requirement for treatment that was completed by the physician met all three criteria contained in the Directive which are: (a) that the treatment was not elective; (b) that it was not available at the grievor's place of residence, and; (c) was required without delay. Based on the above facts, the representative stated that the department was not justified under the circumstances to deny the claim submitted by the grievor.

The departmental representative stated that the "Non-Elective Medical or Dental Treatment" provisions of the Isolated Post Directive provides for reimbursement of transportation and travelling expenses on the basis of specific conditions being met i.e. the employee had the onus of satisfying the Deputy Head by means of a certificate of the attending medical practitioner that the treatment was: (a) not elective; (b) not available at their Headquarters and (c) required without delay.

The department acknowledged that the speech therapy treatment for the grievor's child was not available in the headqarters area, therefore, criteria (b) is not in dispute. With respect to criteria (a) and (c) of the directive, the department is of the opinion that these two criteria were not met by the grievor. The grievor's child was assessed in November 1995. It was noted that therapy treatment did not commence for at least six (6) months i.e. June 1996. This interim period indicates that therapy prescribed was in fact elective and not urgent in nature. This conclusion is further reinforced in the physician letter which states that the nature of the position was long standing, the elective nature of this therapy had come to the point when it made sense to get it addressed at this point in time. Based on the foregoing it was the department's position that the grievor, who has the onus of proof, has been unable to demonstrate that the treatment accorded to her child was neither non-elective nor of an urgent nature.

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 intent of the Directive, given the fact that the three requirements contained in the Directive were met as certified by the attending physician.

The grievance was upheld.