Grievance Case Summary - G-225

Between October 1993 and January 1996, the Grievor drove from his home to report for his shifts at his detachment. From there, he drove in a police vehicle to the airport where he completed his duties. After January 1996, when this use of a police vehicle was prohibited by the Appropriate Officer, the Grievor submitted operational travel claims for the distance he had to travel in his own car between the detachment and the airport. The claims were denied.

The Grievor grieved the decision denying his travel claims, arguing that the detachment was his worksite, and that he was responsible only for getting to his worksite, and not to any further location. He noted that when he had been transferred from the detachment to the unit that operated out of the airport, he had been at the detachment only three weeks, and had just completed a Force-paid relocation to be nearer to the detachment. He argued that he had been assured that his worksite would remain the detachment and that he would never have to travel in his own car further than the detachment. The Grievance Advisory Board recommended that the grievance be upheld, finding that the detachment was the Grievor's worksite, and that the airport was merely a "satellite office". The Level I adjudicator disagreed, finding that the Grievor's only worksite was the airport. He denied the grievance.

On April 23 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that the Grievor's worksite was the airport, and that the arrangement whereby certain members had developed the practice of reporting first to the detachment and picking up and delivering mail did not make the detachment a worksite. As the airport was the Grievor's worksite, the Committee found that he was not entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses between the detachment and the airport. However, the Committee expressed its concerns regarding the manner in which the matter was handled by the Force. If the Appropriate Officer had made more of an effort to try to understand the individual circumstances of this Grievor, particularly the fact that he had been reassigned to the Airport against his will in 1993, barely three weeks after relocating to be closer to the detachment, he might have been able to find an expedient solution to this issue that would not have left a member under his command feeling that his employer was not treating him with respect.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied. However, it also recommended that an apology be provided to the Grievor for the manner in which this matter had been handled by the Force.

On May 30, 1999, the Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

After considering the information provided, the Commissioner was satisfied that the Grievor's work site was the [airport] not [the detachment]. The grievance was denied and the Grievor was not entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses. The Commissioner commented that it was unfortunate that an expedient solution had not been found; however, an apology to the Grievor in this case was not warranted.