HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0762.Muscatello.85-05-08
.~.:;... 1 i"
.~
r
r
, ,
.' . ? ~ ,r
, ~ ),'
.'"
OHTAmO
CFfOWN EAFlOVEES
GRIEVANCE
1111 SETTLEMENT
BOARD
160 {)()N/)AS STREET WEST. TORONTO. OlfTARIO. MSG IZ8 . SUITE 2100
TEl..EPHONEt -ne/S98- 0688
762/83
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
OPSEU (Wayne Muscatello)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
{Ministry of Correctional Services}
Employer
Before:
G. Brent
I.J. Thomson
W.A. Lobraico
Vice Chairman
Member
Member
For the Grievor:
P. Sheppard
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service smployees Union
For the Employer:
J.P. Zarudny
Counsel
Crown Law Office Civil
Ministry of the Attorney General
Hearings:
October 11, 1984
January 7, 1985
--~
'r
~
2
,-
The matter arises out of a grievance lEx. 1) dated November 4, 1983
,
in which the grievor complains that his 'claim for e>:penses associated
. . '
with [nis) developmental assignment has been rejected by {his} Area
, ,
. .... - ;;.
Manager, Keith Walker, Brampton Probation Office'~ As relief he
requests (1) mileage from his residence to the Mi'mico Correctional
'-
Centre, (2) meal allowance, and (3) tra ve I t1 me to and from the
developmental assi gnment.
The facts in this matter are relati vely strai gbtforward. The only
evidence which we heard was from the grievor, so our summary of the
('.
,
- .
facts will be, 1n essence, a summary of his testimony.
. .
The grievor was employed by the Ministry as a contract employee for
,
. f":
some time before he was the successful applicant for a full-time
-~
. Probation Officer 1 position in the Brampton area. The Opportunity
Bulletin for the job (Ex. 2) set out the following description of the
job;
':1('1
.~.
(
....."
"- -
The successful. candidate will, under general
super,vi sion, in adult probation of~1.ces, serve
courts and adult offenders in that area; prepare
pre - s e n ten c ~ r epo r t S, c 0 !l d u C t S 0 cia I
i nve sU l;l tions, ,ensure tha t terms of proba tion and
p~role oz:ders are fulfilled; provide guidance,
counsell1ng and supervision to adult probationers
_andparol.ees, and perform other specialized
functions as required, including Institutional
Liaison duties.
. ,"..?"
:- ~o:":
On August 12, 1982 the grievor. was in~ormed that he was appointed
,to,the pos1ti~n, (Ex. 3) and hi~ head~uarters .bec,!me the Brampton
Office. The posit10n1s,a Schedule 6 position, and it is recognized
that while there is a minimum weekly number of hours e.xpected or the
,grievor, there may be a, need forhim to work in excess of that in order
,to complete his duties. The parties ha,~~,enter~d i,nto an agreement
(Ex. 15) which grants Probation and Parole Officers on Schedule 6
3
(
addtional days oft with pay, in recognition of the additional and
flexible hours which they are required to work.
The essence of the dispute does not concern any period when the
parties agree that the grievor's headquarters was the Bralllpton Office.
The dispute arises concerning a developmental a8Si~ment to the Mimco
Correctional Centre which was effective in October, 19ij3. Suffice it to
say that during the period prior to October. 1983, when everyone is
agreed that the grievor's headquarters was Brampton, he would submit
expense accounts for m1leajJe and meals which were honoured by the
Ministry. For the sake of simplicity we can say that these expenses
were incurred when, in the course of bis duties, he was required to
travel outside of Brampton.
Pr10r to October. 1983 the gr1evor was handlinga sedgraph1cally
determined case load out of the Brampton office. Although he 1s not
required as a conctition of employment to have his own car, he used his
car on his periodic trips out of the Brampton office when he had to
travel to meet cUents in other places'served by the Btampton office.
In fact, he tesU!1ed that an automobile was required 10 order to dO,his
job and that there was no Ministry automobile availal:le to him. When he
drove hi s car on those trl ps he was not transportl ng any other person on
Ministry business and would only be carrying his briefcase and case
note s wi th hi m. He was pai d milea Be and IDea 1 allowance sa 5 c la1 me d on
those trips. His headquarters was clearly considered to be the BralDpton
Parole Off1c-e for the purpose of any expense claims prior to October.
19t13.
The Institutional Liaison Officer has no caseload. He works in an
institution interviewinginlllates and assisting them In making parole
plan8~ He also acts as liaison between the Parole Board and the Parole
4
Of [i ce rs j n the communi ty.'
\
As the Opp.ortunitylBulletin (Ex. 2) points
t'
,:
- ,
out, the Probation and Parole Officer j9b.includ~,s the performance of
~ . , ~
this specialized function. The grievor had no experience in this sort,
of work and there 1s no dis'pute betwe~n the,pa,rti,es that the Employer
could properly assi gn the grievor to these duties.
In August, 198) the, grievor was"f1_rost;1nformed that he would be
... . ...j~lo.. ,.. f) or
assigned the Institutional Liaison Officer duties in the Mimico
Correctional Centre as a development~.l assignment. The purpose of a
,-
developmental assi gnment is to lear,n o!:herjob,functioDs and thereby
("
8l1n insi31t into another side of the M1~1s.try's functions. The grievor
test! fled that he was informed that the ass! BDment was Dot permanent and
j L . .~ ... ~
that it would last'for at least ,si.xDlonths a,n"d at most twelve. In fact
""
.... :J.
the assignment was for six months..
Because the circumstances, of this ~asstgnment are critical to the
. .
determination of the issues before us" we wi~l_reproduce in full the
'.' ......
correspondence which wa,s excban,ged betwee~ t,he grievorand his Area
Ma na ~ r, Mr. Wa lice r.
Tha t correspond~nce follows:
,.
.!!:. ,i.
. ~
(.
[This is a memorandum. sent by ,Mr. Walker, the Area
Manager to the grievor and Mr. Su}.livao, dated
Au~st 15, 1983J
De velopmental Assi gnDlent
This will confirm. my conversation with you both.
There will be an exchange of your duties to take
place in the month ofSeptem,ber 1983, OD a day to
be oe go t1 ate d.
It is expected that preliIl1inary visits will
commence immediately allowing for the introduCtion
of the incoming officer to personnel at both the
institu.tionand field office."Also, the outgoing
officer sk"!ould familiarize his_replacement with the
duties and responsibl1ties of his position.
5
In view of the fact that Mr. Sullivan will not have
completed his Law examination untiL September
15/83, I do not requi re the e xchan ge to occur
be fore tha t da te but 1 t should be cornple ted by the
end 0 f tha t llIon th.
I am sufe that you will both benefit by this
@ xper1ence and I thank you for your co-opera tion.
Ex. 5
(This memorandum was s@nt by the grievor to Mr.
Walker on August 17. 1983J
(
Further to our conversation thi s day 18m wri t1nS
to advise you I feel 1 am entitled to travel
expense to and from my developmental a8sJsoment at
the K1mJco C.C. As you are aware I have not
volunteered or requested this developmental
a881 gnIll!Dt'~
'.
I was under the impreSSion Illy 'normal place of
employmeot' w1thin the Brampton Area, when hired as
a 'probation officer, (first on contract in Dec.
1981 and later as cOlZlpH meat staff 1n Aug. 19d2)
W8S the Brampton Probat1(m O1f1ce. The prox11l1ty
of my place of emploYIIll!Dt obviously influenced my
decJs10n where to locate Illy residence (I preaently
uside within approx. 3 k1l8. of the BralllptoD
probation Office). At the same time I am_aware one
of the expectations of my posi tlon as probation
off1cer 1ncludes insti tut10nal lia180n duties. I
feel. however. I should have 101 t1ally beeo h1 red
1n this capacity and allowed to e8tabU8h residence
near this place of employment. I do not feel I
should be now burdened wi th the added expense of
gasoline aod wear and tear to my personal vehicle
in covering approx11ll8tely 60 kms. daily to the
. Mi mtco C.C. (I consider thi S outsi de my normal work
location), Dor do I feel 1 t lIould be reasonable to
expect me to relocate my residence in Brampton for
a temporary developmental 8S8i gnment.
I am also requesting you clad fy whether my trawl
time will be included as part of my work schedule
or will it be considered outside worlttng hours - 1n
wh1ch case I feel I have 8 claill to overtime
compensation 89 stated 1n Article 23.1 of the
collee t1 ve Agreement.
...........
P.s. - In addition as I perceive thelBrampton
Probation Office to be my 'normal place of
employment' Or my 'assl geed headquarters' 1
(
(
(
'.
<)
6
believe, I should also be entH~~d..tD a meal
allowance when travelling to the MimicD C.C.
as 1 t ,e xceeds the 24 kqomt;! tre ,bo~nda ry
established in Article 17.22(b) of the
Co lIe c ti ve Agree me.[l,t.,
Ex. ~
. I I ~
{Memorandum dated August 19, 1983 fr...m Mr. Walker
to the gri e vor J
.'
'. .
. ~. L"' .
YOUR MEMO DATED AUGUST 17. 1983
~
t'
To respond to your letter dated August 17, 1983,
may I.address' eachp01nt.
Your,'e,mployment is within the Brampton Area as
indicated in competition #CI-0137":'S2, the one in
whi'ch' you ~e re the succe 8S ful"a pp,H c~n t. .Af? you
point out, you llad at that time been on contract to
this .Area for some nine months and it would be.
e xpe c te d tha t you wa u1 d be a wa re tha t the I.L.O.
posit1on at Mimico was'included In this Area.
Furthermore, the competition notice specifically
note s tha L the. appli can t would ,be, requi re d to
perform 'Inst1 tutional Liai son Dutie s'. -
In the matter of your choice of residence, I have
no cOllUlent,as_thls Is a,personal pre.rerence.
I am not pr,epared to aHo,,! you 'travel tim~' since
your place of employment will.be Mlmico (Article
23.3).
A meal allowance will not be allowed as this,will
not be an 'unusual non-recurri'ngsitua'iion'
(Article 17.2.4) and your '88si gned headquarters'
w:111 beM:tm:lco' (Article 17.2.2 (b)). " . ,
E Jt. 7
--
[Memorandum dated September 16,1 983 from Mr.
Walker to the ,grievor]
Developmental As~1gnment - Mimeo C.C. - October ?,
1983
This will confirm our previous conversation
concerni ng your future de ve lopmental a ssi gnnent,.
As of October 3,1983, you willbe assigned tothe
LL.O. posi tian at MJmico Correctional Centre.
I am sure you will benefit from this opportunity.
7
Please ensure ch'st your field cases are ready Co
hand over to Mr. Paul Sullivan.
The grlevor filed an expense sheet for the month of October. 19d3
claillling milea~ between his home and M:lUlico. and lunches tor each day
at Him1co. This claim was refused and the grievance was filed.
The griever tesUfted that during the period of h.1s developmental
assi gnment to the !i1 mico C.C. his hours of work. were from 8:30 a.m.
until 4:45 p.m. and that he tried to keep those hours. He said that be
had to lea\le home by 7:45 a.m. and would return home at around 5:30 p.m.
(
each day. He said that on his trips from home to the Kim1co C.C. and
back be would transport oet ther Hi aistry equi pmeDt nor personnel. There
.,',
. "
.;.
i8 po publIc transportation available between his home and the Mimeo
C.c.
The gr1evor also said chat when che de\tl!lopmental 8S81 gDmeot was
made he expressed concerns to hi 8 Area MaD.ser about the conci tiOD of
his automobile and its ability to function during the period of his
assignment. ,In fact there were some days wben his automobile broke down
and he was allowed to work in the Bralllpton Office while it was out of
8~rv1c:e. On those days he was not pa:ld any expense allowance even
~.
though Bumpton 1s over 24 kID. from the K1m1co C.c.
The grievor testif~ed that he was not aware of the way in Which the
Employer treated any ocher employee's expense claIms and he was not
relying on the Employer's treatment of any other employee in making his
case.
In addi tion to the grievor's testimony the Union introduced other
dOCUlllent6~ beinge)(Cerpts frolll policy manuals and a memorandum refJIrding
expenses (Exs. 13. IS. /)17). We will deal with those documents in the
course of the decision should we consider them releva.nt to th~
8
. ,
I
'\,
de te r aU na ti on .
..!r,j I"
J ~.
The 'jssues'~ as'defined by the parties. are these:
I'; '.
1. Is there any restrictjon on the Ministry in determining
'whetheran employee 1s on'Ministry business for the purpose of
Article 22 of the collective agreement? If so. has this been
vi ola ted?
I
2. Does Article 17.2.2(b) apply to disentitle the grievor to a
. .
mea 1 allowance?
3. Was the grjevor "travelling outside of workiDg hours.when
. 1 . ~ 1
(
authoriud by the ministry" for the purposes of a claim under
.,
, '
'\.0
Ar ttcle 23.11
,y.;
The following articles of the collective agreement are of
1 mpor,tance 1 n de te rmi n1 n g the IlIB t te r :
. . _" 1
ARTICLB 7 - BOUIS 01' WORK.
7.3 SCHEDULE 6
.J
'- ~ .
The normal hours of work for elIlployees on
thi s schedule .'shall be.a' m1 01 mum of
thi rty-six and one-quarter (36 1/4) hours
'per week~, " ~.
Ii,
,~
AK1'ICLE ,17 - JtIAL ALLOIIAlfCE
r
\"
17.2.1
Cost of meals may be allowed only:
17.2.2
If during a normal meal period the
e m p 10 ye e i s t rave lli n g 0 n go ve r n me n t
:bus{ness other than:
. (a) oil, patrol duties, except as. provided
under subsection 17.2.3, or
. .
(b) within twenty-four (,24) kilometers of
his assigned headqU:Clrters" or
~c) wi thin the lDetropoli tan area in which
he js normally working;
ARTICLE 22 - KlLEAGE RATES EXPRESSED IN KILOHETB.ES
22.1 If an employee is required to use his own
9
automobile on the Employer's business the
followingrates shall be paid effective
April I, 1982:
K.i lo~ tres
Dr! \Ie q
Southern
Ontario
Northern
Qntar! 0
0- 4,000 km
4,001- 12.000.km
12,OUl kID a'nd ove r
t
23.5/km
la.O/kID
1S.0 Iklll
t.
24.0/km
la.S/kID
15.5 /km
Al.TICLE 2) - TIllE CKEDI"lS WllILE TlARLLIHG
23.1 Employees shall be cred1ted with all time
spent in travelling outside of working
bours when authorl zed by the minl stry.
We acknowledge, wlthout reservation, that the Employer has the
(
right to designate headquarters aod to change tbe designation of
headquarters. The Uoion did not take issue wi th the proposi t10n put
forward by the Employer that that was 1 ts manaaement r1 ghe and that such
right was not 1n any way fettered or affected by the collective
agreement.
Indeed, we cons1der that the cases c1 ted to us all
aCk.Dowledg! that such a riillt exists.
In Howes (356/82) the Board found tbaC the Employer there had
undertakenjn 1ts internsl Manual to designate headquarters in a way
vhi ch wa s e qui ta ble to both the employee and the Employe r. The Boa rd
went On to flnd that the re-designat10n of headquarters was not
\,
equltable to the grievor. The Board also determined that in order to
interpret Article 22.1 of tile collective agreement external evidence was
needed to clari fy the mean1ng of the article, which does not speci fy
points of departure. The decision lias upheld by the Divis10nal Court
sub nOm. Re The Queen l!!. rl ght E...! Ontario and Ontario Public Service
Employees' Union!..! a1. (19H4), 45 O.R.(2d) 361.
In support of the contention that the Employer here had equally
undertaken to act in an equitable fashion the Union referred us to the
1ntroductory pages of the Ontario Manual of Administration (Ex. 17).
10
(
That passage is appended to this decision along with, the portion of the
r1anual which deals wi th 'Internal Duty Assignment': The purpose of the
manual is stated, in part, to be to "9Jide mana~rs at all levels in the
Ontario Public Se~v1ce In the:'.:!!l..! and equitable treatment of their
personnel '; The portion resard1ns. 'Internal Duty Assi gnment" deals wi th
expenses which are apowable' and does include under that heading travel
and living'extlenses~
We do not agree that the 'portion of the Manual which deals wi th
c ..
'Internal Duty Asignlllent"1s necessarily applicable to the situation
before us. On its 'face, it seems to contemplate enrollment 1n sOllie sort
:~:
,"''j;,'
af farmal course rather than the sort of dewlopmect assignment which
was made in this case. On the other hand, it does indicate that travel
and 11 ving expenses can be considered. to be allowable when an employee
1s ensa~d in one type of internal staff development for,the benefic of
both the employee and the Employer.
10 the instant case, the grievor was not transferred penosnenely to
fill the Institutional Liaison Officer posi tion at the Mimico
Correcitonal Centre. He was clearly told that the assignment was
(
temporary and for the specific purpose of staff development. that is, to
educate him in other aspects of the job fo~ the benefi t of both himself
and the Employer. Given that the assignment ,could be for as little as
six months, which was in fact the case, and that he knew that he would
_ be returning to the Brampton Off1ce, it 'Would indeed be unreasonable to
expect him to relocate to the Mim1co area. Surely, given the lack of
public transportation, the likely duration of the assignment, and the
knowledlJ:! that he would be returning to Brampton. it,was reasonable to
contemplate that he would be j'ncurring travel'expenses in order to
~
11
travel between hIs home and Milllico.
'.,/e agree that there is no obligation on the Employer to pay for
either the expenses or the tillle spent by an employee cOlllmuting between
hi s home and hi s headquarters. We further agree tha t the Employe r has
no control over where an employee chooses to live and that by reason of
that choice the Employer cannot be subjected to addi tional expense. It
is our finding. though. that this assignment to Mim1eo was an internal
developmental 8ss1gntDe.nt of temporary duration and that in considering
travel expen'ses for such an assignment the Employer should have
(
considered its undertaking to treat its employees in a "fair and
equ1 table" manner.
By de 81 goa t1 D 8 M1 m:1 C 0 a s the gr1evor's hea dqua r te r 8
and refusing to hooour claims for travel expenses between his home and
M1mico. the Employer was in effect placing on the grievor all of the
financial burden which would be incurred at its requeat for his
development as 8 Probation Officer in 1ts service. In our view such a
result under the circumstances of this case would Dot be fair aod
equ1table to the grievor when travel aDd l1ving expenses can be
allowable expenses for staff developtDent courses. In other words. we do
not cons1der that it is necessarily fair and equitable to allow the
,
i.
Employer to defeat any obli gaUon which it may have to pay for travel
expenses 1n connection with internal staff development assignments by
means of re-designating an employee's headquarters.
In fact. the Employer seemed to be incons1stent 1n the re-
des1gnation of headquarters 1n this case. The grievor's automobile
broke down on some occasions and he was allowed to work out of the
drampton Office then because he could !'lot reach Mimico. Surely, if the
Employer was then treating him as being headquartered in Mimico it
should have paid h1m travel and meal expenses for the days that he I,WS
~
12
(
working out of the Brampton Office.
While travel expenses may be allowed under the Manual (Ex. 17)
Article 22.1 of the collective agreement requires the 'Employer to pay
milea8! claims when an employee Is, 'required to;use his own automobile
on the Employer's business". In this caset there can be no doubt that
the grt-evor was required to drive his ow.n automobi:le. The absence of
public transportation and the fact that he was allowed to workat the
Brampton Office when his automobile was not operating certainly
'indicates that it was recognized that he was requi.red to drive his
(
automobile in order to complete this developmental assignment. We
,:~}~
further consider that travel incurred 1'0 the course of commuting to a
-;..~~~~
..'
developmental assignment under circumstances where it would be
.:.;
:; .
impractical and unreasonable to relocate falls wi tbin the meaning of
"the Employer's business" for the reasons set out above in discussing
e %pense s for in te r.na I de ve lopmen ta 1 as~i grime n ts., In 0 the r wordst in
terms of the wording of the "first issue put before us, we consider that
the Employer has undertaken 'to interpret the phrase ''the Employer's
business" in a manner which is fair and equitable to its employees and
,
\,
in"keeping with its recogniUon in the manual (Ex. '17) that travel
expenses incurred in the course of internal-staff development
assignments are allowable expenses which may be paid. We therefore
consider that the grievor should be paid milea8! pursuant to Article 22
of the collective agreement.
It has been noted in several cases that the collective agreement
does not define points of departure for the purpose of calculating
inileage. In the instant case, we consider that the additional expense
to which the grievor was put at the request of the Employer was the
13
:!
(
difference between what he would normally have to drive to work in
llrampton and what he had to drive to work in Hll1lico. We believe that
chis amounts to approximately 24 km. per trip or 48 km. per day and we
direct that the appropriate m:11ea8! rate ~ applied to those trips given
the kilometres driven by the grievor in the fiscal year io question.
We consider that tbis deals with the first ilssue put before us.
In dealing with the other two issues we do not consider that the
grievor's claims should succeed. Under Articles 17.2.1 and 17.2.2 the
c.ollect1ve agreement provides that meals w111 not be paid if the
employee 18 w1 tbin 24 km. of hi sassi gned headquarters or wi thin the
metropoHtsn area 1n which he normally works. Here the grievor's
assigned headquarters for the period was Mimico and, io any event, he
was normally working at Himico for the period 1n question, therefore we
do not consider that there has been any v1olation of Article 17 by
re fusi ng to pay his meal costs.
In reading TomaSini (71/78) and Fawcett (275/82) there lIl4y be SOIlle
conflict between the two decisions concerning the applicsbilJty of
Article 23.1 to Schedule 6 employees. We do not consider that we need
resolve any such confljct in eMs csse because we cOllsider that the time
the gt1evor spent every day travelling between his home and the Mimico
C.C. should be regarded in the same manner as commuting time between
home and work. 'We do not consider that Article 23.1 waS intended to
compensate elDployees for such time, but rather that it was intended to
. deal with travelling other than that between home and headquarters.
For all of the reasons set out above, we allow the grievance in
parti specifically we award the payment of rnl1eaw claims pursuant to
Article 22 of the collective agreement on the basis set out in this
.') ~
award. Io/e will remain seized of the matter should the parties be unable
0;
14
to agree on the appropriate amount to be paid to the grievor.
DATED AT ,LONDON w ONTARIO THIS
8th
DAY OF
May
w198~.
',.:~'-
. .
- .
~~
Gail Brent. Vi ce Chai rman
r.
1. J. Thomson, Member
(
.
w. A. Lobraic:o. Member
''':'$:.....
\:.~):;I
::.::1::--:::
>;':\-/.-~.~
~ .:
~
c
,p'tii
~
Ontario
Manual of
Administration
~
FOREwORD
Authority:
Purpose:
(
(
References to
Acts, Regula-
tions and
Co 11 e c t 1 ve
Agreements:
Suggestions
for Amend-
centS:
APpnwrx
I>
F~LI CY
Introduction
This volume is issued by the C1v1i Service Commls-
&10n, with the approval of the Chairman Management
Board of Cabinet, a8 Volume 2 of the Manual of
Administration.
This volume Is the main reference source fOr l1ne
managers in the area of personnel management. It:
.) contains per60nnel policies and procedures
approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council,
by Management Board of Cabinet, or by the Civil
Service Comml~sion in accordance with The
Public Service Act and Regulations; and
b) provides, where appropriate, administrative
direction for the administration of these
policie..
These polie!e. and procedures viII guide managers
at all levels in the Ontario Public Service in tbe
fair and equItable treatment of their personnel.
As proper treatment of personnel 1. dependent upon
the intelligent application of these policies and
procedures, the principles involved and the intent
of the instruction should be kept ~on8tantly in
mind.
Although directed mainly towards line manager6~
this volume should form the main body of reference
materIal for personnel directors and their staffs.
Where references In this volume are made to Acts
and Regulations. t~e definitive authority in each
case is the offica1 statute or regulation.
~here the policies and procedures contained in
this volume are in conflict with a collective
agreement applicable to a bargaInIng unit in the
Ontario Public Service, the provisions af the
collective agreement preval1~
Suggestions for amendments should be forwarded to
the Editor. Manual of Adm1nistration Volume 2,
~~~:~l~:rvlc. cccmlSSl0n..~~~~
--r:::fl ~ man
Civil Service Commission
I
4-2-J
~.
,.
(
(
:;
~f1i
~
Ontar:o
Manual of
Administration
POLIcY
Staff Develop~ent
INTERNAL DUTY ASSIGNMENT
Eligibility:
~- .
To:be eligible for an internal staff:development duty
assignment, a public servant shall have completed at least
one year of service in the public service, except that 8
deputy minister may.waive this requirement in indiv1dual
eases where:
. circumstances so dictate; and
. ,the' deputy minister is satisfied that the public
servant intends to remaln1n the public service long
enough to ensure an adequate return for the invest-
ment in their development.
.. .1;
~ Type of Progr~
Supported:
Allowable
Expenses:
.. Conditions:
A deputy minister may assign a public servant t~ participate
in an internal staff development program not normally
exceeding 12 months, that, 1n the deputy minister's opinton,
will prov!d~ the public servant with skills or knowledge of
~ value to the public service (Ref. REG. 23(1)).
A ~eputy minister ~ho has assigned a public servant to
participate in an internal staff development program:
. shall authori~e the payment of an amount equal to the
cost of tuition fees; and
. ilia' authorize the payment of an amount equal to all or
part of any other expenses that have been specified
and agreed to by the deputy minister prior to the
commencement of the duty assignment.
Other expenses related to the civil servant's participation
in the staff development program may include:
. ~egistration fees
examination fees
necessary books and supplies
. necessary travel and living expenses.
NOTE: Membership fees are not eligible as staff development
expenses. See Volume 1. Manual of Administration. "Member-
ship FeesM under "EHPLOY~E'S EXPENSESM.
...
A public servant assi~ned to participate in an internal
staff development program shall:
submit regular personal 8ttendance reports (Ref.
... !'tEG. 23(4)1);
not accept s bursary or scholarship in respect of the
... program (Ref. REG. 23(4)2);
not' enter into any other emplo)'lllent that would inter-
fere with their participation in the program or other-
~ise contravene nny provision of the conflict of
interest regulation made under the Public Service Act
t@1
~
Ontario
Manual of
Administration
,"
POLICY
Staff Development
INn:R~AL DUTY ASSIGt\'}IENT (condnued)
>>-- Conditions:
(continued)
not be eligible to earn overtime credits or overtime
pay by reason of participating in the program or
completing work pertaining thereto (Ref.
REG. 23('-)4);
be eligible for normal salary and benefits treatment.
.
.
How to ensure that civil or public servants are made aware
of the conditions applicable to duty assignments 1s at the
deputy minister's discretion.'
.'
Programs
Exceeding
Twelve Months:
The deputy minister may renew a duty assignment exceeding
twelve months:
. upon proof of aat1sfactory progress; and
. aubject to the lame provisions and conditions as the
orIginal assignment~