Grievance Case Summary - G-260

The Grievor agreed to be assigned to a temporary assignment for a twelve-month period. Although a letter of understanding was signed between the Grievor's supervisor and the person responsible for the temporary assignment, the Grievor was not provided with a copy of that letter. For the first five months, the Grievor was provided with a vehicle which he was able to use to commute between his residence and the workplace where he had been temporarily assigned. However, after that five month period, the Grievor was responsible for making his own arrangements until the end of his assignment. Just when his assignment was about to end, the Grievor learned that other members had received a private vehicle allowance while assigned to other temporary duties. The payment of their allowance had stopped only when a transfer report had been prepared to confirm a change in the member's workplace. The Grievor therefore relied on that information in support of a request for payment of a private vehicle allowance. The Grievor described his temporary place of work as a "point of call" to which he had been authorized to travel directly from his home; he contended that his duties were of an itinerant nature since he had been required to return to his detachment for all administrative matters in relation to his position. The Grievor's request was denied. It was noted that the Grievor had volunteered for the assignment; the Grievor's contention that his duties had been of an itinerant nature was also disputed. It was concluded that the Grievor was not entitled to a private vehicle allowance because he had failed to make his request before undertaking travel.

The Grievance Advisory Board ("GAB") recommended that the grievance be denied because the Grievor did not seek approval from his supervisor to incur private vehicle mileage.

The Level I Adjudicator agreed with the GAB. However, he also concluded that the Grievor should have been advised in writing of the change of place of work. He directed that the Grievor be paid an allowance based on travel incurred during the first month of the period claimed. He concluded, however, that the Grievor could not be reimbursed for anything else because he did not raise this matter as soon as he began using his private vehicle to commute to work.

On May 24, 2001, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee concluded that the place where the Grievor was temporarily assigned was not merely a "point of call" for the Grievor but that it had become his workplace when he started the special assignment. The Grievor's workplace was where he "ordinarily" performed the duties of his position, regardless of the fact that the Force failed to provide him with written notice to that effect as stipulated by its own policy.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

On June 13, 2001, the Acting Commissioner G.J. Loeppky rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his officer, is as follows:

Acting Commissioner G.J. Loeppky agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be denied. He found that as a matter of job function, the Grievor effectively worked out of the [city] Regional Police Street Drug Unit. The Acting Commissioner concurred with the Committee "that there is no discernable logic that this member should be compensated for driving to and from work every day because he was not provided written notice of a change of workplace which he was well aware of prior to reporting to the [city] Regional Police Street Drug Unit". Further, his duties were not of an "itinerant nature". The grievance was denied.