HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-2291.Malboeuf.16-06-08 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2015-2291
UNION#2015-0205-0040
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Malboeuf) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Labour) Employer
BEFORE Randi H. Abramsky Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Seung Chi
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Thomas Ayers
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING May 25, 2016
- 2 -
Decision
[1] This mediation/arbitration process was conducted in accordance with Article
22.16 of the Collective Agreement.
[2] The grievance asserts that the Employer violated the collective agreement and
the Travel, Meal, and Hospitality Expenses Directive by denying his expense claims,
including denial of parking costs for a meeting on June 1, 2015. It also alleges that this
was part of “a campaign of intimidation and bullying in the workplace.” The only
allegation pursued at the hearing was the failure to pay the Grievor’s parking expenses
on June 1, 2015.
[3] On June 1, 2015, the Grievor, an Occupational Health and Safety Inspector,
travelled from his home to headquarters for a team meeting. On his way, he picked up
another Inspector who was also attending the meeting, and dropped him back at his
home after the meeting. After the meeting, he submitted an expense claim for the
parking cost incurred. The Ministry denied that claim. In an email explanation, the
Ministry wrote: “to receive parking you first need to perform some type of job related
task, FV, witnesses statement, picking [up] of documents from police station, etc.” It
was the Grievor’s position that picking up his co-worker was “ministry business” and, in
the past, the Ministry had paid his parking in this exact situation.
[4] On the day of the med-arb before the Board, the Union listed three prior
occasions that payment in these circumstances occurred - two in 2014 and one in
March 2015. The documentary evidence shows that parking was paid on those dates,
but does not reflect the specific circumstances. The Ministry tried to determine the
circumstances of those payments, but was unable to do so at the med-arb.
Consequently, for the purposes of this grievance only and without deciding it actually
happened, I accept that the Ministry did pay for parking on those prior occasions in the
same circumstances.
[5] The Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive, in Section 3.0, Mandatory
Requirements, requires that claimants must “obtain all appropriate approvals before
incurring expenses; if no prior approval was obtained, then a written explanation must
be submitted with the claim.” In regard to Parking, the Directive states as follows:
Reimbursement is provided for necessary and reasonable expenditures on
parking,…when driving on government business.
Parking costs incurred in the office area as part of a regular commute to work will
not be reimbursed.
The Operations Division Policy and Procedures Reference Manual in regard to Travel &
Overtime defines “Ministry Business (Field Work)” states, in relevant part:
- 3 -
Ministry field work includes such activities as field visits, court appearances on
behalf of the ministry, offsite visits, offsite attendance for training or to attend
special projects and/or committees. Driving a ministry vehicle or carrying a laptop
does not in itself constitute work unless the employee is driving to conduct on of
the above activities.
…
Ministry field work does not include: an employee’s regular commute to
headquarters, working from home before coming to the office or attending to union
business.
In regard to “Parking” the Manual states:
The cost to park either personal or ministry vehicles at headquarters will not be
covered unless the employee has conducted ministry business either prior to
attending or after attending headquarters. The responsibility for any parking tickets
incurred would be the employee’s.
Reasons for Decision
[6] In my view, reading the Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive as well
as the Operations Division Policy and Procedures Reference Manual, the parking
expense incurred by the Grievor on June 1, 2015 was not eligible for reimbursement.
Picking up a co-worker to attend a required meeting at headquarters and then taking
him home again after the meeting is not reasonably considered “Ministry Business” as
outlined in the policies. It does not turn what is, in fact, a commute into “Ministry
Business.”
[7] I conclude, however, that payment should be made in this case because it had
been paid the three prior times that this situation occurred, which reasonably led the
Grievor to believe it would be paid on June 1, 2015. The Ministry was free to enforce its
policy but it had to do so prospectively. In my view, the Ministry’s position, as stated in
its email response – that an employee needs to perform some type of job-related task –
before or after the meeting at headquarters to qualify for parking reimbursement is a
valid reading of the policy and expresses how it will be interpreted on a “go forward”
basis. In addition, as stated in the Directive, a claimant must “obtain all appropriate
approvals before incurring expenses.”
[8] Consequently, I conclude that the Ministry must reimburse the Grievor for his
parking expenses on June 1, 2015, but need not do so in the future. The Grievor is now
on notice that the Ministry will enforce the Directive as written. The grievance,
therefore, is allowed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 8th day of June 2016.
Randi H. Abramsky, Vice Chair