Grievance Case Summary - G-368

In January 2003, the Grievor requested an advance under the Vacation Travel Assistance (VTA) pursuant to the Isolated Post Directive (IPD) for a vacation for himself and his dependants from headquarters to a point of departure. The Grievor's request for an airfare advance was based on the "return economy class airfare" without any restrictions. The Respondent reduced the Griever's requested advance by utilizing a lower rate for the "return economy class airfare".

The Level I Adjudicator decided that the grievance was not presented within the required 30 days which was counted from the date when the Division personnel was advised that the lower return economy class airfare was to be used for the calculation of the VTA.

The Committee found that the statutory time limit of 30 days was respected. It began to run from the date that the Grievor was informed that his particular claim was denied, and not from the date that personnel in the Division were advised about the new rules for the calculation of the VTA.

The Committee found that the fact that the Level I Adjudicator had ruled in a previous grievance presented by the same Grievor did not in itself raise an appearance of bias. Furthermore, there was no other evidence presented that would point to any reason for the Level I Adjudicator to not act in this case.

The Committee recommended that given that the parties have already made representations on the merits, the Commissioner rule on the merits and deny the grievance.

The Committee found that the Respondent had correctly calculated the maximum entitlement for the VTA under the IPD. It was appropriate to use the lower rate for "return economy class airfare" as it met the requirement of being effectively a ticket without restrictions.

The grievance should be denied on its merits.

The Commissioner has rendered her decision in this matter, as summarized by her office:

On the issue of time limits, the Commissioner ruled that it was only as of January 15, 2003, that the Grievor knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that the amount he requested as part of his vacation travel assistance advance was partially denied. While the Grievor learned on December 16, 2002, that Division [in question] would calculate the maximum vacation travel assistance entitlements by applying the lowest return economy class airfare, it was only on January 15, 2003, that he submitted his request for an advance and that the Respondent adjusted the amounts requested. Accordingly, the grievance was timely, and the Commissioner decided to address the merits herself.

With respect to the Grievor's claim that the Level I Adjudicator might have been biassed since he had adjudicated one of the Grievor's previous grievances, the Commissioner agreed with the Chair of the ERC that the Grievor had failed to demonstrate the presence of bias. As for the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner ruled that the decision to use the lesser "Y" fare in calculating the maximum entitlement of vacation travel assistance was correct and respected the Grievor's entitlement to the full fare of the lowest return economy class airfare that contains no restrictions. The 100% refund by credit voucher was not a restriction, but simply a minimal inconvenience.

Accordingly, the grievance was denied on the merits.