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

Decision

1This mediation/arbitration process was conducted in accordance with Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

2The 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.

3On 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.

4On 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.

5The 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:

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

6In 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.”

7I 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.”

8Consequently, 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.