July 3, 2007
21.4.937
Background
The employee grieved the employer's failure to honor the Travel Directive Part I Administration 1.1 Authorization 1.1.1. The grievor requested to use his own four-wheel drive (4x4) and all-wheel drive (AWD) vehicle for safety reasons when road conditions were icy. The employer does not provide fleets with 4x4 or AWD systems which the grievor maintained improves vehicle control and safety under poor road conditions. The grievor requested payment of expense claims for the period of December 1 to 20, 2004, and January 10 to 27, 2005. As well, the grievor demanded that future requests to use a private vehicle for government travel be accommodated based on his needs and interests, as per the Travel Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The bargaining agent representative described the conditions of the road the grievor was required to travel. These roads, secondary and gravel/dirt roads of uneven surface quality and low traffic, received little to no attention from the provincial Highway Department and its salting and sanding program.
In the middle of the winter of 2004/2005, freezing rain fell on a large area of the District. This ice persisted for many weeks and made driving very treacherous. The grievor used his own vehicle for duty travel, as he had both an all-wheel-drive and a four-wheel-drive vehicle that would handle these slippery roads better than the two-wheel-drive fleet truck available.
The representative stated management had continuously refused to provide any guidelines for when private vehicle use may be authorized, always deciding on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, authorization was made for half of the trip, which follows no Travel Directive guidelines. The grievance maintained that travel was safer due to taking his own vehicle which was more suitable for the road conditions. The grievor's concern seems to be verified, as in March, 2007, the department supplied an all-wheel-drive vehicle for his use. Four of these vehicles have been obtained by the department since then. This demonstrated management has now acknowledgement that winter driving conditions sometimes necessitate more than just two-wheel-drive vehicles.
The bargaining agent submitted that management's primary reason for denying the use of private vehicle was cost. Insufficient consideration was given to safety and practicality, contrary to the intent of the directive.
Departmental Presentation
The departmental representative first stated that although part of the intent of 1.1.1 of the Travel Directive is to consider the needs and interests of the employee, and the operational requirements of the organization when determining travel arrangements, with respect to the selection of the mode of transportation, it also clearly states that cost, duration, convenience, safety and practicality shall be the basis for the decision taken.
The representative explained the department has its own fleet comprising approximately 1,490 vehicles. The grievor was provided with a dedicated fleet vehicle in order to carry out his duties. It is the employer's position that it would not be within the intent of the Directive to pay for the use of the grievor's private vehicle in addition to the costs paid for the fleet vehicle that is readily available for use. Notwithstanding, there have been occasions where management had authorized the use of the grievor's private vehicle in specific circumstances, with prior consultation.
The representative stated that the Directive also calls for consultation to occur between the employee and the organization, and that authorization be provided in advance. In this case the grievor informed management that he would be using his private vehicle, however, no consultation occurred. Furthermore, authorization was not provided in advance.
With respect to the issue of safety, the departmental representative explained the grievor had not provided any evidence to demonstrate the fleet vehicle was unsafe to be driven in winter conditions in the region. The department's position is the vehicle is indeed safe and meets all legislative requirements including those of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its associated regulations covering the manufacture and importation of motor vehicles.
The department representative referred to a comprehensive departmental policy entitled Motor Vehicle Safety, in place to ensure that all fleet vehicles are maintained in a safe operating condition and that employees have ready access to vehicle safety information. As well, winter safe driving recommendations from Transport Canada and The Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals (CARSP) relate to driver controlled actions such as break pumping, slow driving, skid control and tire selection. These recommendations apply to all vehicles regardless of the type of drive it may be equipped with. It should be noted that the vehicle assigned to the grievor was fitted with mud and snow tires.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive. Notwithstanding 1.1.11, the Committee would like to emphasize that all listed factors, as well as the principles of value and flexibility, must be considered by employees and management in order to fully consider what mode of transport is authorized.
The grievance was denied.