FPSLREB Decisions

Decision Information

Summary:

No summary has been written for this decision. Please refer to the full text.

Decision Content



Public Service Staff Relations Act

Coat of Arms - Armoiries
  • Date:  2004-05-07
  • File:  166-34-32374
  • Citation:  2004 PSSRB 35

Before the Public Service Staff Relations Board



BETWEEN

NELSON PETERS

Grievor

and

CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY

Employer

EXPEDITED ADJUDICATION DECISION


Before:  Yvon Tarte, Chairperson

For the Grievor:  Cécile La Bissonnière, Public Service Alliance of Canada

For the Employer:  Charlene Hall

(Note: The parties have agreed to deal with the grievance by way of expedited adjudication. The decision is final and binding on the parties and cannot constitute a precedent or be referred for judicial review to the Federal Court.)


Heard at Ottawa, Ontario,
April 30, 2004.


[1]    The parties submitted an "Agreed Statement of Facts", which reads as follows:

Agreed Statement of Facts

  • At the time in question, Nelson Peters worked, as a PM-02 customs inspector, at the Regina International Airport, Saskatchewan.
  • Mr. Peters was covered by the Program and Administration Services Group Agreement between the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (Expiry date: October 31, 2000).
  • The employer required Mr. Peters to attend Personal Protection Training in North Portal, Saskatchewan, from January 31, 2000 to February 4, 2000.
  • The employer made arrangements for Mr. Peters to stay in Estevan, as there was no lodging in North Portal. Estevan is the closest community to North Portal and is approximately 38 kilometres one way. It would have taken Mr. Peters approximately one-half hour drive time from Estevan to North Portal.
  • Mr. Peters travelled from Estevan to North Portal by means of an employer-provided vehicle.
  • In accordance with Article 32.05(b) of the Program and Administration Services Group Agreement, Mr. Peters was compensated travel time of 2.5 hours at the double rate of pay from his residence to Estevan. On the return trip, Mr. Peters was paid 2.5 hours at time and one-half.
  • On February 4, 2000, Mr. Peters submitted a request for 4.5 hours of traveling time at the applicable overtime rate (total of 6.75 straight time hours). This represented one-half hour traveling time from Estevan to North Portal each way, each day (one way only on the last day).
  • On February 8, 2000, Mr. Peters' superintendent, who was also the Acting Director of Customs, Saskatchewan, amended Mr. Peters' time sheet to reflect no compensation for travel time between Estevan (hotel) and North Portal (training site).
  • Mr. Peters filed the instance (sic) grievance on March 15, 2000.

[2]   Article 32 of the relevant collective agreement between the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the Public Service Alliance of Canada reads, in part:

32.03   For the purposes of this Agreement, travelling time is compensated for only in the circumstances and to the extent provided for in this Article.

32.04   When an employee is required to travel outside his or her headquarters area on government business, as these expressions are defined by the Employer, the time of departure and the means of such travel shall be determined by the Employer, and the employee will be compensated for travel time in accordance with clauses 32.05 and 32.06. Travelling time shall include time necessarily spent at each stop-over enroute provided such stop-over is not longer than three (3) hours.

32.05   For the purposes of clauses 32.04 and 32.06, the travelling time for which an employee shall be compensated is as follows:

(a)   for travel by public transportation, the time between the scheduled time of departure and the time of arrival at a destination, including the normal travel time to the point of departure, as determined by the Employer;

(b)   for travel by private means of transportation, the normal time as determined by the Employer, to proceed from the employee's place of residence or work place, as applicable, direct to the employee's destination and, upon the employee's return, direct back to the employee's residence or work place;

(c)   in the event that an alternate time of departure and/or means of travel is requested by the employee, the Employer may authorize such alternate arrangements, in which case compensation for traveling time shall not exceed that which would have been payable under the Employer's original determination.

32.06   If an employee is required to travel as set forth in clauses 32.04 and 32.05:

(a)   on a normal working day on which the employee travels but does not work, the employee shall receive his or her regular pay for the day;

(b)   on a normal working day on which the employee travels and works, the employee shall be paid:

(i)   his regular pay for the day for a combined period of travel and work not exceeding his or her regular scheduled working hours;

and

(ii)   at the applicable overtime rate for additional travel time in excess of his or her regularly scheduled hours of work and travel, with a maximum payment for such additional travel time not to exceed twelve (12) hours' pay at the straight-time rate of pay;

(c)   on a day of rest or on a designated paid holiday, the employee shall be paid at the applicable overtime rate for hours traveled to a maximum of twelve (12) hours' pay at the straight-time rate of pay.

[3]   In Mayoh et al. and Treasury Board (Regional Economic Expansion) (PSSRB File Nos. 166-2-8896 to 8914), while dealing with similar provisions, the adjudicator indicated, at paragraph 38 of his decision, that the clause then in question:

.is differentiating between, on the one hand, an employee who spends his own time traveling between his normal place of work and his "residence" and, on the other hand, an employee who is required to use an employer-provided vehicle between his "residence" and a work location which is not his normal place of work.

[4]   The adjudicator went on to say that he did not interpret the provision of the collective agreement:

.as requiring the employer to regard as time worked time spent by an employee who, once arrived at the field location, uses an employer-provided vehicle to travel to and from the nearest acceptable temporary accommodation.

[5]   The reasoning in Mayoh et al. (supra) applies to the facts of this case. The grievor in this case seeks payment "as per 32.06" of the collective agreement.

[6]   Clause 32.06 applies only for travel situations referred to in clause 32.05. Clause 32.05 deals with travel by public transportation and travel by means of private transportation from the employee's place of residence. Neither of these situations applies in this case.

[7]   The grievance is therefore denied.

Yvon Tarte,
Chairperson

OTTAWA, May 7, 2004.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.