When several school boards were amalgamated, the new employer chose the travel policy with the best cost savings. However, the Arbitrator ruled that the employer had exceeded its management rights in doing so.
A school board sought to enforce a practice that required teachers to car-pool and share accommodations when attending mandatory, out-of-town professional development sessions.
The union filed a policy grievance.
Following the amalgamation of a number of provincial school districts, the employer attempted to broadly apply the existing employee travel expense practices from one of the previous districts to all the employees in the new, larger district.
The Western School District did not have a formal written policy on employee travel expenses. However, there were a number of references to travel policy written in memos to staff in advance of scheduled professional development training sessions.
The memos referred to a requirement that staff “fully utilize” car-pooling arrangements. Worker mileage claims would not be reimbursed for workers who chose to drive alone.
Similarly, workers were expected to share accommodations. Workers who chose to have their own room would only be reimbursed for half the cost of the room.
The union was not opposed to car-pooling or shared accommodations undertaken on a voluntary basis, but it opposed any employer policy or practice that would make these arrangements a requirement. These requirements were a violation of the collective agreement, the union said. The practice was unreasonable and an affront to the individual dignity of teachers.
Concern for personal safety
Numerous teacher complaints and concerns were on record. These ranged from concerns over a loss of control over personal safety and comfort as a result of having to car-pool with, potentially, drivers of unknown ability in vehicles with unknown liabilities or deficits.
The requirement to share accommodations raised privacy issues. Concerns were expressed about being compelled to share a room with someone with chronic health conditions or incompatible social habits. Teachers were also concerned they might be required to share a room with someone with a different sexual orientation. The alleged, but undocumented, proviso that an exemption from the requirement to share accommodations could be granted at management’s discretion provided little comfort. Such a request would require a worker to make a disclosure to management about a personal or private matter.
Teachers were entitled to ensure their safety and to protect their privacy, the union said.
The employer said mandatory car-pooling and shared accommodations were necessary to control costs. The impugned practice did not violate the collective agreement, according to the employer. While the contract did broadly address travel allowances — including mileage rates to be paid to workers authorized to use their own cars for travel and costs for food and lodging — it made no reference either to shared accommodation or to car-pooling.
Exercise of discretion
In the circumstances, the employer argued that management’s rights entitled it to make decisions about which travel arrangements were reasonable. The employer was entitled to use its discretion to authorize the payment of mileage rates only when the vehicle in question was participating in a car pool arrangement.
The employer also said that the contract gave it the scope to determine when a single room was appropriate and whether or not the expense was “reasonable.”
Because the employer practice in question was linked to the collective agreement, the employer was required to act reasonably, the Arbitration Board said. In particular, the employer was required to act reasonably when deciding whether or not to allow mileage claims and accommodation expenses under the terms of the collective agreement.
The employer had not acted reasonably.
“The Board finds that it is not reasonable to require a teacher to transport other teachers in a car pool, as a condition of reimbursement, when there is no language in the Article [of the collective agreement] to support such a condition.”
The Board said the requirement was unreasonable for a number of reasons. Under these circumstances, teachers would be required to bear the risk of legal liability to passengers. Meanwhile, other employers administering the same collective agreement did not enforce a similar practice. As well, there was no written policy to accompany the practice and the possibility of gaining an exemption from the practice was not communicated to the teachers in writing.
For the same reasons, the Board also said it was not reasonable for the employer to require teachers to share accommodations.
The Board ruled the employer’s practice was not a reasonable exercise of its discretion under the collective agreement.
The grievance was allowed.
Reference: Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers’ Association and Western School District. James C. Oakley — Chairperson; Ray Goulding and Gary Hatcher — Members. V. Randell J. Earle for the Association. Ian C. Wallace for the Employer. July 22, 2011. 41 pp.
