Headquarters area

The employee alleged a violation of the Travel Directive as his assignment was outside his headquarters area. The employee wished to obtain a declaration to the effect that the assignment was outside his headquarters area; that he be paid for transportation expenses (i.e. 78 km per shift); time spent travelling, a total of 1 hour overtime at time-and-a-half; and the cost of sending the duly completed forms by messenger.

Disciplinary measures were imposed on the grievor as a result of an incident that took place at the Institution he had been assigned to. The grievor in turn filed three other grievances in relation to the sanctions that were imposed on him. However, before these grievances could be heard an agreement was reached and the grievances were subsequently withdrawn.

In one of these grievances, the grievor requested as corrective action "the payment of financial compensation for travel expenses and the use of a vehicle associated with his deployment at a rate of $10,000 annually."

The Department was of the opinion that although the wording of the grievance in question is not identical, the content is the same and that the application is the same. The Bargaining Agent does not agree and was insistent that this grievance was separate from those mentioned above.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor was employed at location ‘A'. Subsequently, as a result of disciplinary measures, he was transferred, against his will, to a work unit at location ‘B' for the period between 21 May 1996 and 21 June 1998, inclusively. The representative stressed that the grievor in fact had no choice but to accept the transfer, as it was clear to him that he would be dismissed should he not accept.

During the period of time in question, the grievor used his personal vehicle to drive to and from work. According to the representative, the grievor should therefore be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses totalling $9,493.44. This sum represents mileage expenses incurred during the aforementioned time frame, as the grievor's workplace had been changed and was now more than 16 kms away from his home.

With regards to the validity of the grievor's claim, the representative asked the Committee to consider a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that was entered into by the Department, the Bargaining Agent and the grievor. The representative noted that the MOA, which was signed on June 25, 1998, clearly outlined the provisos, which would enable the grievor to withdraw his other grievances. Nowhere, is there mention of the subject grievance being withdrawn.

The Departmental representative stated that for all intents and purposes, in the Department's opinion, the subject grievance is identical to those that were previously withdrawn. More specifically, the representative stated that in order to arrive at a settlement, when the MOA to withdraw the other grievances was prepared, the grievor's representative asked for reimbursement for some sixty kilometers and set the amount for travel costs at $23.56 per shift.

In the Department's opinion, the calculation that was made to arrive at such a precise amount is as follows: take the request for 78 kms (as stipulated in the corrective action), and deduct 16 kms for the headquarters area, for a total of 62 km, then multiply this number by $0.38 cents per km for a total of $23.56.

The Departmental representative submitted that the Department believed that the grievor and his representative took this application into account in the subject grievance (which, the Department agrees was not part of the three grievances subject to the agreement) for reimbursement of kilometric expenses (per shift) when the grievor and his representative negotiated the said MOA. For all of these reasons, the Department was of the opinion that this was the same application. The Department maintains, therefore, that the subject grievance is mute.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Departmental representative stated that the Committee would have to determine if the grievor was in travel status and whether he was entitled to a reimbursement of travel expenses.

The representative asked the Committee to consider the following definitions. Travel Status: "…means absence from the traveller's headquarters area on government business travel, and at a location which, using the most direct route, is more than 16 kilometers from the traveller's home."

Workplace: "…is the location at or from which an employee ordinarily performs the duties of his or her position…" The representative argued that the grievor's permanent work location was location ‘B' as he had been deployed to that position. This is further corroborated in the grievor's letter of offer dated July 23, 1996 (which was effective April 1, 1996). This letter also mentioned that no relocation expenses would be covered.

The representative further noted that the Treasury Board Travel Administration Guide states "that when the workplace is changed, the employee is not entitled to travel expenses between home and the new workplace."

The Executive Committee considered the grievance and agreed with the Government Travel Committee report, which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive for the period beginning on May 21, 1996 and ending on July 23, 1996 with respect to transportation expenses. It was agreed that the NJC does not have jurisdiction to deal with overtime and the cost of message service. The Committee agreed that the grievance be upheld to the extent that it satisfies the requested corrective action.

The grievance was upheld.