From August 23, 2018, to October 4, 2018, the grievor, a Ships’ Officer, was working on Vessel A which was operating in Region D. On September 19, 2018, the grievor requested to make a phone call home using the ship’s equipment, in accordance with subsection 4.2.8 of the NJC Travel Directive. The grievor’s request was denied by the Commanding Officer who informed the grievor that they could instead avail themself of the entitlement outlined in article 44.03 of the Ships’ Officers (SO) Collective Agreement.
The employee grieved that on September 19, 2018, the request to have phone calls as per subsection 4.2.8 of the NJC Travel Directive was denied.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the application of providing telephone access to Ships Officers and Crew varies from ship to ship and shift to shift. Certain captains follow the collective agreement and others follow the NJC Directive, while others make up their own rules. Presently, the Captains of the ship in question provide calling cards for 5 minutes per week, which the Bargaining Agent representative noted is both a breach of the collective agreement and the NJC Travel Directive.
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the Department had received an interpretation from Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) stating that both subsection 4.2.8 of the Travel Directive, as well as Article 44.03 of the collective agreement in question, apply. The interpretation stated that if an employee was required to make a call beyond what they were entitled to under the NJC Travel Directive, then the collective agreement would apply. The Bargaining Agent representative informed the Committee that the Bargaining Agent agreed in principle with this interpretation and was willing to withdraw the grievance, but that TBS had issued a revised interpretation the week prior to the hearing.
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the language currently found under subsection 4.2.8 of the Travel Directive has been in place since 2002. The Bargaining Agent representative argued that the revised interpretation from TBS would effectively render the subsection 4.2.8 of the Travel Directive to be meaningless. If that was the intent, the Bargaining Agent representative questioned why this language would have remained in the Directive since 2002 despite being regularly reviewed during the cyclical review process.
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that in accordance with the principles of the Directive, specifically respect and the valuing of people, given that ships’ officers and crew are away from their families for extended periods of time with limited to no connectivity and the fact that mental wellness is a top priority for government, the Bargaining Agent representative is of the opinion that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive.
The Departmental representative argued that the issue at hand is whether the Application provision of the NJC’s Travel Directive was properly applied when the Department denied the grievor the opportunity to make a phone call while aboard a vessel.
The Departmental representative stated that the NJC’s Travel Directive forms part of the Ships’ Officers Collective Agreement; however, the Directive’s Application provision specifies the restriction that the Directive does not apply to government travel for people governed by other authorities.
“This directive applies to public service employees and other persons travelling on government business, including training. It does not apply to those persons whose travel is governed by other authorities.”
The Departmental representative noted that in a 2006 decision from the PSLRB, the adjudicator stated that the restriction found within the Application of the Travel Directive must be interpreted within the general framework of the Collective Agreement and that “other authorities” can refer to other parts of the Collective Agreement.
The Departmental representative argued that given this decision, the Department applied the exclusionary clause stipulated in the Application provision of the NJC Travel Directive as Ships’ Officers are entitled to telephone calls home while away from home port under the travelling conditions specified in the grievor’s collective agreement. This provision of the Collective Agreement is part of the “other authorities” and therefore, in the opinion of the Department, the provisions of the Collective Agreement cannot be further specified or elaborated by the provisions stated in the Travel Directive. In light of the above, the Departmental representative is of the opinion that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee reviewed the report of the Government Travel Committee and noted that the Government Travel Committee could not come to an agreement on whether the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive. The Executive Committee could not reach consensus on this issue either. As such, the Executive Committee reached an impasse.
The Executive Committee noted that the Department’s practice of providing callings cards to employees aboard vessels does not meet the intent of either the Travel Directive or the collective agreement.