Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-0167.Watson.04-05-03 Decision Crown Employees Commission de ~~ Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs Board des employes de la Couronne ~-,... Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario 180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2002-0167 2002-0545 2002-1218 2002-2430 2002-2916 2003-0647 UNION# 02B311 02B432,02F019 2002-0202-0013 2003-0202-0004 2003-0202-0006 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Watson) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of FInance) Employer BEFORE Owen V Gray Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION GavIn Leeb BarrIster and SOlICItor FOR THE EMPLOYER Fateh SalIm Counsel Management Board Secretanat HEARING June 23 and December 2, 2003 2 DeCISIon [1] The gnevor IS a RetaIl Sales Tax audItor workmg out of the mmlstry's HamIlton office These gnevances all concern the employer's response to claIms that the gnevor submItted for reImbursement of lunch costs mcurred between February 2002 and May 2003, whIle performmg audIts m locatIOns more than 24 kIlometres from the HamIlton office [2] The gnevor spends a substantIal portIOn of hIS work tIme performmg audIts at taxpayers' locatIOns m the geographIc area for whIch the HamIlton office IS responsible He penodlcally submIts a "Statement of Travellmg Expenses" form ("expense form"), settmg out hIS claIms for reImbursement of expenses mcurred over a number of days Although the eVIdence before me also mcludes mformatIOn about expense forms that the gnevor numbered 44 and 64, the gnevances before me relate to claIms for reImbursement of lunch costs that appear m expense forms that the gnevor numbered 45, 46, 47, 50, 54, 59, 61, 62 and 63 The Items m dIspute are claIms for approxImately 35 lunches m amounts between $9 35 and $1594, each lunch conslstmg of between one and three separate purchases for whIch receIpts accompamed the claIms In each case the employer has reImbursed or agreed to reImburse $925, but refuses to reImburse the balance of the amount claImed. The total amount remammg m dIspute appears to be less than $80 00, but from the partIes' perspectIves there are matters of prmclple at stake The partIes agreed that notwlthstandmg the subJect matter and mdlvldual nature of the gnevances, my decIsIOn on these Issues WIll have "precedentIal value" wlthm the meamng of ArtIcle 22 16 7 of the collectIve agreement [3] The pertment prOVISIOns of the collectIve agreement appear m ArtIcle 12 of the Umfied Bargammg Umt collectIve agreement UN 12.2.1 Cost of meals may be allowed only UN 12.2.2 If durmg a normal meal peTIod the employee IS travellmg on government busmess other than (a) on patrol dutIes except as provIded under UN 12.2 '3 or (b) wlthm twenty-four (24) kIlometres [SIC] of hIS or her assIgned headquarters or (c) wlthm the metropolItan area m whIch he or she IS normally workmg 3 UN 12. '3 GratUItIes and taxes are to be mcluded m the actual cost of meals clanned. UN 12.4 The total cost of meals for each day IS to be shown. UN 12 5 Before approvmg claIms for meals the branch head should be satIsfied that the charges are reasonable for the localIty [4] The matter of Meal Expense was addressed m a Mmute of Understandmg between the umon and the Mmlstry of Fmance dated Apnl 18, 1997 5 1 Wlthm the frame work of ArtIcle 12 of the Inchvldual Bargammg Umts Agreements meal allowances may not exceed $:32.25 per day wIthout receIpts Based on actual out of-pocket expendItures mcludmg gratUItIes mcurred m the performance of work dutIes employees may claIm up to the followmg amounts wIthout receIpts Breakfast $ 7 00 Lunch $8'35 Dmner $lG.90 $:32.25 Where It IS suspected that there may be an abuse of the meal allowances management may reqUIre an employee to submIt receIpts for amounts less than those lIsted. 52 Nothmg m ArtIcle 5 1 m any way lImIts management s nght to determme the reasonableness of all claIms By Its terms, thIS Mmute remams m effect from year to year untIl a new Mmute IS entered mto [5] One pnor Board decIsIOn wIth respect to meal cost reImbursement was cIted d urmg argument. Bradley/Lowe, 169/89, (Venty), dated November 2, 1989 The language of ArtIcle 17 5 of the collectIve agreement then m effect was substantIally the same as that of ArtIcle UN 12 quoted above A local agreement between the umon and the affected mmlstry m that case contamed a prOVISIOn that, apart from the dollar amounts, appears to have been to the same effect as the prOVISIOn of the 1997 Mmute of Understandmg quoted m paragraph [4] above At pages 8 and 9 of the Bradley/Lowe decIsIOn, the Board observed that Under ArtIcle 17 5 of the CollectIve Agreement management has the chscretIOn to approve or deny meal expense claIms The sole cntena [SIc] for approval IS that the chsbursements are reasonable for the localIty ThIs appears to be a recogmtIOn by the partIes that the pnce of an average meal wIll vary accordmg to localIty Clearly ArtIcle 17 5 of the CollectIve Agreement gIVes the employer broad chscretIOnary powers to approve meal claIms a fact that IS recogmzed by the Umon 4 m ArtIcle 5 2 of the local agreement. However It cannot be saId that the chscretIOn IS unfettered. The Gnevance Settlement Board has the power to reVIew the exerCIse of management s chscretIOn under ArtIcle 17 5 to ensure that the employer chd not act m a manner that IS arbItrary chscnmmatory or m bad faIth. In thIS case the employer does not dIspute that m assessmg whether meal claIms "are reasonable for the localIty" It must not act m a manner that IS arbItrary, dlscnmmatory or m bad faIth. There IS no allegatIOn of dlscnmmatIOn or bad faIth here [6] Management Board's "Travel Management and General Expenses" pohcy dated October 1997 addresses the matter of reImbursement for cost of meals m sectIOn 11 110 Meals When travellmg on behalf of the government employees are expected to exerCIse Judgement and restramt at all tImes when buymg meals MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS . Employees shall be reImbursed for meal costs when, durmg a normal meal penod . an employee IS on travel status (or as defined under the CollectIve Agreement) . Employees shall be reImbursed for actual meal costs not exceedmg the meal rates2 approved by Management Board of Cabmet Breakfast $G 75 Lunch $925 Dmner $1800 . Total daIly maXImum meal rate reImbursement $:34.00 mcludmg gratUItIes and taxes . Employees shall charge all meals on the corporate card whenever possIble . Employees must retam meal receIpts to support expense claIms m accordance wIth mlmstry procedures No reImbursement for meal costs shall be made for meals at home pnor to departure or on return, meals mcluded m the cost of transportatIOn accommodatIOn, semmars or conferences Costs mcurred for alcoholIc beverages wIll not be reImbursed. 2Meal rates The approved meal rates represent reasonable meal costs They are gUIdelmes for maXImum meal reImbursements and are not to be consIdered meal allowances If meal rates are exceeded, persons authonzed to approve claIms must ensure that expenses are supported by receIpts and are reasonable for the locatIOns where mcurred. The same polIcy addresses the responsibIlItIes of employees wIth respect to expense claIms generally m sectIOn 14 3 5 14. '3 ResponsIbIlItIes of Employees fiVhen ",'ubmltt11lf.? an expense clmm emplovee.... must ProvIde explanatIOns (or proof of pnor approval from an Immechate supervlsor/spendmg authonty) for unusual expenses and when claImmg for another employee [7] A memorandum dated December 12, 1997 sent to members of thIS mmlstry's management by the mmlstry's Corporate ServIces DIVISIOn recItes that "Management has met wIth OPSEU, whIch has agreed to rescmd per dIem travel and expense rates m the local agreement m favour of the new corporate rates" The "new corporate rates" referred to are those set out m paragraph 11 of the October 1997 MBS polIcy WhIle the assertIOn m the memo about the umon's agreement IS not admItted by the umon m thIS proceedmg, It seems to be common ground that the $925 amount specIfied m the October 1997 MBS polIcy superseded the lesser amount m the earher Mmute of Understandmg as the maXImum lunch expense claIm that wIll be allowed wIthout a supportmg receIpt. [8] The underlymg dIspute began when Mr Brown sent the gnevor thIS memo of February 13, 2002 Dear Terry Your expense report dated Feb 7 2002 mchcates days on whIch your meal cost at lunch was m excess of the publIshed maXImum of $925 Costs for lunch greater than $9 25 are allowed wIth receIpts only m extenuatmg CIrcumstances Your expense report has been approved. In the future however any expendItures for meals beyond the publIshed maXImums WIll reqUIre explanatIOn of the extenuatmg CIrcumstances and approval m advance of the expendIture In a sItuatIOn where I am not aVaIlable to confirm extenuatmg CIrcumstances one of the other managers should be contacted. FaIlure to do so may result m the chsallowance of the claIm. WIth a couple of exceptIOns, the gnevor dId not thereafter seek pnor approval for hIS eatmg lunch at locatIOns where expenses could exceed $925 More Importantly, when he subsequently filed claIms for lunches costmg m excess of $925, he dId not mclude or provIde any explanatIOn. [9] Some Issues about management's response to the gnevor's claIms were resolved by agreement m medIatIOn m January 2003, or durmg the subsequent hearmgs For 6 example, It was agreed that where management concludes that a lunch claIm supported by a receIpt or receIpts for more than $925 IS not reasonable for the localIty, It should normally approve and reImburse the employee $925 (unless there would have been some reason to deny a claIm for that amount unsupported by receIpts), wIthout reqUIrmg that the employee submIt a revIsed expense claIm lImltmg hIs/her claIm for that meal to $925 It was also agreed that when an employee's lunch meal consIsts of two or more purchases for whIch receIpts totallmg m excess of $9.25 are submItted, the claIm for reImbursement should receIve the same treatment as If the food purchased had been acqUIred m a smgle transactIOn for an amount equal to the total of the receIpts submItted. WhIle pnor approval would assure reImbursement, the employer acknowledged that the absence of pnor approval would not preclude reImbursement of a reasonable claIm. [10] What remams m Issue IS whether the employer acted arbltranly m decldmg that lunch claIms m Issue - that IS, claIms for more than $9 25 - were not reasonable for the locahtIes m questIOn. Some of those decIsIOns were made by the gnevor's manager, Jim Brown. WhIle Mr Brown was absent for health related reasons, the gnevor's claIms were revIewed by Martm Mlksza, the Dlstnct Manager at the HamIlton office Mr Mlkska also performed the reconsIderatIOn that was undertaken as a result of the medIatIOn. [11] For each of lunches m Issue, management's eVIdence estabhshed one or more of the followmg pomts . management knew of restaurants m the localIty at whIch lunches could have been obtamed for $9 25 or less, . the claIms of other audItors from the HamIlton office for lunch expenses m that localIty had been for $925 or less, . other claIms by the gnevor for lunch expenses m that localIty had been for $9 25 or less [12] WIth respect to the claIms of other audItors, Mr Watson testIfied that several had told hIm that they have spent more than the $9 25 they claImed. ThIs IS hearsay, of course Even If true, It IS not partIcularly helpful. There IS no way to know from Mr 7 Watson's eVIdence how often thIS supposed under claImmg occurred There IS no way to know whether It occurred (If It dId) because audItors could not find reasonable meals for $925 or less, or because there were specIal CIrcumstances that the audItors could not be bothered to explam that had led them to eat m more expenSIve restaurants, or because they had made a chOIce to treat themselves to somethmg more than they could faIrly expect the employer to pay for m full. A challenge to the apparent sIgmficance of the employer's havmg receIved no claIms above $925 from other audItors m sImIlar cIrcumstances would have to be supported by more dIrect and detaIled eVIdence about the other audItors' claIms I have gIven no weIght to the gnevor's eVIdence about what other audItors told hIm concermng theIr meal claIm habIts [13] Although the gnevor was repeatedly told that he should provIde an explanatIOn when submlttmg a lunch claIm for an amount m excess of $925, he dId not do so wIth respect to any of the claIms m questIOn. HIS testImony m these proceedmgs mcluded some explanatIOn of the chOIces he made when mcurrmg those lunch expenses I wIll not recIte those here The Issue at hand IS whether the employer acted arbltranly m any of ItS decIsIOns that hIS lunch claIms m excess of $9 25 were unreasonable to the extent of the excess The gnevor had the opportumty to provIde any pertment explanatIOn before those decIsIOns were made He was urged to do so He dId not WIthout suggestmg that I thmk that the explanatIOns he gave m hIS testImony would have warranted a dIfferent response If they had been provIded at the tIme, I sImply note that management's decIsIOns cannot be faulted for havmg faIled to take mto account mformatIOn that the gnevor chose not to provIde [14] Umon counsel argued that the receIpts themselves reflect an effort to achIeve vanety and nutntIOn m food chOIces, and that those consIderatIOns should therefore have been taken mto account I agree that the content of the receIpts can be taken mto account m assessmg the decIsIOns made wIth respect to them. I am not persuaded that there IS anythmg about the content of any of the receIpts that overcomes the mference to be drawn from the facts recIted m the paragraph [11] of thIS decIsIOn - namely, that a reasonable lunch meal could be obtamed m the localIty m Issue for $925 or less [15] The umon's mam attack on management's decIsIOns was on the way the decIders described what they had to decIde 8 [16] Mr Brown's "wIll say" statement was accepted as hIS eVIdence m chIef, and the umon dId not seek to cross examme on It. ThIS IS Mr Brown's eVIdence wIth respect to the context m whIch he wrote the memo of February 13, 2002 I was appomted Group Manager AudIt RetaIl Sales Tax m Misslssauga m the fall of 1998 Pnor to that I was a Semor AudItor RetaIl Sales Tax the same posItIon whIch Terry Watson holds In August of 2000 I transferred to the HamIlton office m the same posItIon. WhIle workmg as a Semor Auchtor I submItted claIms for meals subJect to the same polIcIes that Terry now faces and I contmue to submIt expense claIms subJect to the same meal polIcIes Other audItors m thIs group have not filed lunch claIms over $9 25 wIth one exceptIOn when the audItor was requITed to take the Go Tram to Toronto and was faced wIth an expensIVe area to find food and lImIted mobIlIty For the penod from August 2000 when I first became manager of the audIt group m HamIlton whIch Terry IS a member of, to November of 2002 [SIc] there were some expense claIms filed by Terry whIch con tamed lunch claIms over $9 25 There were '3 or 4 claIms m that penod wIth one lunch each over $9 25 Of those claIms I found one to be reasonable (Terry was gIVen the name of a restaurant by the vendor whIch turned out to be expenSIVe and he went somewhere else after that) I approved these claIms Although I had problems wIth the clarms approved, I was aware that there had been a prevIOUS gnevance (by Terry Watson relatmg to meal ClaIms) and as long as the clarms were mfrequent I was not prepared to force the Issue. Consldermg the amount of tIme spent on the current gnevances I thmk that was a reasonable decIsIOn. Terry s claIms for late November and early December contamed several days where lunch was claImed for over $9 25 I approved thIs claIm as well but when the claIm for January and early February contmued thIs trend, I felt forced to take a stand on the amount of lunch claIms because thIs was now becommg a regular occurrence It IS not faIr to other audItors who are abldmg by the maxrmum to be contmually approvmg clarms for a partIcular auchtor over that amount. As well, there IS potentIal for a large number of claIms of thIs nature from other audItors If thIs IS allowed to go on. The reqUIrement for pnor approval seems to be a maJor problem m thIs gnevance The reason for thIs reqUIrement was that m speakmg to Terry about the claIms m Guelph he mchcated that he had asked the vendor about restaurants m the area and had been dIrected to The Portly Pengume [SIC] and was not aware of any other restaurants If pnor approval IS gIVen then the audItor IS aware that reasonably pnced restaurants are nearby and whether a claIm wIll be approved. ThIS reqUIrement could be dropped, but It would be necessary for Terry to understand that It IS hIS responsIbIlIty to check for restaurants m the area (the mternet IS a good source) and that the excuse that he does not know of other reasonably pnced restaurants m the area IS not acceptable. [17] After recltmg portIOns of ArtIcle UN 12 of the collectIve agreement, the Mmute of Understandmg and Management Board's Travel Management and General Expenses PolIcy of October 1997, Mr Brown states that he concluded from those sources that he should consIder the followmg m assessmg whether lunch claIms m excess of $925 were reasonable 9 1 The lunch amount of $9 25 IS meant to be the maXImum amount claImed m most CIrcumstances ThIS IS a negotIated amount for a reasonable lunch. 2. It IS a manager s responsIbIlIty to determme If a lunch claIm m excess of $9 25 IS reasonable for the localIty '3 As long as there are reasonably pnced restaurants m the locahty the maXlffium of $ 9 25 for lunch should apply 4. QuestIOns of the nutntIOnal value of a restaurant s menu or the amount that a partIcular audItor eats or whether he mIght be makmg lunch hIs mam meal of the day should not be taken mto consIderatIon by a manager m approvmg the claIm. These are Items whIch should be consIdered at tIme of negotIatmg the maXlffium allowances not revIsIted each tIme an expense claIm IS approved. [18] Mr Mlksza described hIS approach m a memo he wrote to the gnevor m May 2003 FIrst of all, the $9 25 allowed for lunch IS an agreed upon amount by OPSEU and Management Board, bemg the upper lImIt that can be submItted wIthout a receIpt. The amount IS a reImbursement of the lunch claIm and IS not an allowance If actual costs expended are less than thIs then the lesser amount should be claImed. Management however has the nght to request a receIpt m certam cIrcumstances that are below the $925 lImIt. ThIS upper lImIt that has been agreed, IS not necessanly the upper lImIt for a lunch claIm but IS the lImIt for a claIm wIthout a receIpt. An amount submItted m excess of $9 25 reqUIres a receIpt to be submItted m support of the claIm however the receIpt by Itself IS not adequate to warrant acceptance and approval. ClaIms m excess of the $9 25 are expected to be the exceptIOn and not the rule For a claIm to be accepted for approval, If over $9 25 must mclude a receIpt plus an explanatIOn supportmg the amount for reasonableness for the localIty Examples of such reasons can mclude and are not lImIted to but are not necessanly defimtIve m and by themselves . workmg m a localIty where no lower pnced meals reachly aVaIlable eg parts of Toronto . only one eatmg establIshment aVaIlable m the area . vendor provIdes luncheon menu and audItor remams there for lunch . new or unfamIlIar wIth an area / first day m area / not able to evaluate area (dnve around or plan) for tIme commItments first day Other consIderatIOns used m determmmg reasonableness by the manager wIll mclude but are not lImIted to Items such as . the extent of applIcabIlIty of the above Items . aVaIlable reasonable chOIces at an eatmg establIshment eg Lunch menu vs dmner menu . extent of other establIshments m the localIty . extent of reasonable chOIces wlthm the localIty . past expenence of audItor m relatIOn to famIlIanty wIth area / submItted claIms of other days for both amount and locatIOn . extent of meal/or multIple meals consumed 10 . alcohol stnctly not allowed The above parameters should provIde a basIs for makmg a decIsIOn to the extent of reasonableness for a localIty for both the audItor and the manager ThIs ill no way mchcates where an employee should eat or what he/she should eat however chOIces as to where and what to eat may be Impacted by the lImIts of the reImbursement and VIce versa [19] Umon counsel dIsputed the notIOn that $925 represents a "maxImum" or "negotIated amount" for reasonable lunch costs He noted that the only amounts to whIch the umon had agreed were amounts for whIch receIpts dId not have to be provIded He challenged the charactenzatIOn of claIms for more than $925 as "unusual," and of the CIrcumstances m whIch such claIms would be approved as havmg to be "extenuatmg" or "exceptIOnal." He submItted that It was not a genume exercIse of the dIscretIOn afforded by ArtIcle UN 12 to reqUIre an accompanymg explanatIOn for any lunch claIm m excess of $925, even one for $926 He argued further that "floodgates" concerns of the sort expressed by Mr Brown were not a proper consIderatIOn m the exerCIse of that dIscretIOn, cltmg Re Young and The Crown In Right ofOntano &illlstry OfC0l1111lUlllty and Social Services) 1979,24 L.A.C (2d) 145 (Swmton) at p 147 [20] The decIsIOn called for m ArtIcle UN 12 must mevltably mvolve lme drawmg If one amount wIll be reasonable, whIle a hIgher amount IS unreasonable, then there IS a lme somewhere between the two The language of the ArtIcle explIcItly recogmzes that that lme may be dIfferent m dIfferent localItIes [21] Factors other than localIty that are specIfic to the occaSIOn may also affect what IS reasonable For example, whIle restaurants wlthm walkmg dIstance of the work sIte may be more expenSIve than others that could be reached by car, the addItIonal parkmg and other costs of travellmg by car to a less expenSIve restaurant may exceed the antIcIpated savmgs m food costs It IS not unreasonable for management to ask the affected employee to supply any mformatIOn peculIar to the partIcular occaSIOn and CIrcumstances that mIght affect what was reasonable on that occaSIOn and m those CIrcumstances When no such mformatIOn IS supplIed, It IS not unreasonable for management to act on what It knows from ItS own expenence and from the claIms of others about the pnces of food m the localIty m questIOn. 11 [22] The Mmute of Understandmg between the Mmlstry and the Umon dId not purport to define the lme between reasonable and unreasonable expendItures for purposes of ArtIcle UN 12 The lme It drew was between claIms for whIch the employer would reqUIre receIpts and claIms for whIch It would not reqUIre receIpts (absent suspected abuse) There IS no eVIdence before me about how the amounts m that Mmute, or m the subsequent MBS polIcy, were arnved at DId they reflect an average or upper quartIle or maXImum reasonable cost of those meals m the "cheapest" localIty, or m the most expenSIve localIty, or somethmg m between? Was there a cushIOn bUIlt m for future mflatIOn? Was there a cushIOn bUIlt m to reflect the fact that management tIme spent revlewmg receIpted claIms IS also an expense, and that the savmgs of that management tIme that could be achIeved by an upward adJustment m the unrecelpted amount mIght exceed the consequent costs? There IS nothmg about that before me [23] The umon's agreement to an amount below whIch receIpts would not be reqUIred was not and IS not an agreement that claIms above that amount would be "unusual" or "exceptIOnal, " nor that such claIms could be reasonable only In "extenuatIng" cIrcumstances As Mr Mlksza acknowledged, costs of food have mcreased smce 1997 Whatever the relatIOnshIp may have been between the agreed upon amount and a reasonable expendIture for a lunch m 1997, the relatIOnshIp wIll change as costs nse Even If the number was a presumptIvely reasonable maXImum m 1997, there IS no reason to suppose that It remamed so m 2002 or 2003 I note, however, that there IS no quantItatIve eVIdence before me about the extent to whIch the cost of meals has mcreased smce 1997 [24] The umon's agreement to an amount below whIch receIpts are not reqUIred IS not wIthout sIgmficance m assessmg the arguments the umon now makes That agreement clearly authonzes the employer's makmg what mIght otherwIse have been challenged as an artIficIal or arbItrary dlstmctIOn between a lunch claIm for $926 and one for $925, m reqUIrmg a receIpt for the hIgher amount and not for the lower claIm. Because the umon has agreed to that bnght lme dlstmctIOn, the dIfferentIal treatment wIth repect to reqUIrmg receIpts does not have to be JustIfied by reference to the reasonable cost of a meal m a partIcular locahty, and the employer's mSlstence on receIpts for claIms of $9 26 cannot be attacked merely because It does not reqUIre a receIpt for a claIm of $9 25 It seems ObVIOUS that If receIpts would not be reqUIred for claIms below a 12 certam amount, explanatIOns would lIkewIse not be reqUIred for the amounts of such claIms, absent suspected abuse Accordmgly, the employer's havmg mVlted explanatIOn of all claIms above that lme cannot faIrly be attacked solely on the basIs that It dId not reqUIre explanatIOns for amounts below the agreed upon lme [25] In hIS memo, Mr Mlksza saId that "ClaIms m excess of the $9 25 are expected to be the exceptIOn and not the rule" The umon attacks thIS as a mIsconstructIOn of the combmed effect of ArtIcle UN12 and the umon's agreement to the unrecelpted amount. I agree that such an expectatIOn cannot be JustIfied solely by reference to those prOVISIOns, wIthout reference also to the actual cost of food m the localIty and tIme frame m questIOn. I am not sure that that Mr Mlksza based that statement solely on UN12 and the umon's agreement to the unrecelpted amounts The eVIdence IS that claIms m excess of $925 were, as a matter of fact, very much the exceptIOn m the tIme frame and localItIes m Issue In those cIrcumstances, Mr Mlksza's expectatIOn was not at all surpnsmg, and hIS (and Mr Brown's) posItIOn that such claIms should be accompamed by an explanatIOn was not unreasonable WIthout an accompanymg explanatIOn, the claIm would have to be assessed agamst the mformatIOn management already had, whIch IS IdentIfied generally m paragraph [11] of thIS decIsIOn, from whIch It could faIrly conclude that It was possible to obtam a lunch for $9 25 or less m each of the localItIes m questIOn and that any greater expendIture was unreasonable [26] I am unable to find any fault wIth the decIsIOns of Mr Mlksza that remam m Issue [27] Mr Brown's statement that "[t]he lunch amount of $925 IS meant to be the maXImum amount claImed In most cIrcumstances" reflects the expectatIOn of management m the 1997 MBS polIcy, and does not expressly purport to be a statement of the combmed effect of UN12 and the umon's agreement to the unrecelpted amounts I take Mr Brown's statement about the potentIal for claIms by other audItors as hIS explanatIOn for hIS havmg come to gnps wIth the Issue of reasonableness of the gnevor's claIms rather than sImply contmumg to allow the claIms m order to aVOId hIS gnevances I do not understand that statement to suggest that hIS assessment of what constItuted a reasonable amount was mfluenced by the prospect of claIms by other a udI tors 13 [28] I do agree wIth the umon that Mr Brown mlsmstructed hImself when he concluded that" $925 IS a negotIated amount for a reasonable lunch." I do not know what effect, If any, that mIstaken belIef had on hIS decIsIOns I do know that for each of the claIms that he found unreasonable he noted that one or more of the factors IdentIfied m paragraph [11] applIed. In those cIrcumstances, and gIven the amounts mvolved, I am not prepared to dIrect that Mr Brown reconsIder the claIms he reJected m lIght of the observatIOns m thIS decIsIOn. It IS dIfficult to Imagme that he would come to any dIfferent conclusIOn, bearmg m mmd the facts recIted m paragraph [11] of thIS decIsIOn and the absence of explanatIOn by the gnevor [29] For these reasons I conclude that the decIsIOns m Issue were not arbItrary [30] Agamst the possibIlIty that effect has not yet been gIven to the settlements to whIch I have referred, or that there IS now some dIspute m that respect, I dIrect that the employer make such payments as those settlements may stIll reqUIre, and I remam seIsed wIth any Issue ansmg therefrom. OtherwIse, these gnevances are dIsmIssed Dated at Toronto thIS 3rd day of May, 2004 ~V VIce ChaIr