Parisien and Treasury Board (Public Works and Government Services Canada)

Full Text

166-2-28559
Parisien and Treasury Board (Public Works and Government Services Canada)

Before: R. Simpson
Appearances: D. Landry, for the Grievor; J. Climie and A. Kurrin, for the Employer
Decision rendered: August 20, 1999

Suspension (20 days) – Fraudulent travel expense claims – Credibility – Delay – grievor was required to travel to various locations in the performance of his duties – his supervisor testified that it was the employer's policy that employees should, whenever possible, use a government vehicle for work-related travel – however, on occasion, the grievor used his personal vehicle to travel to a work location – he submitted mileage claims in relation thereto and was reimbursed by the employer – employer noted discrepancies in the mileage claims submitted by the grievor for the use of his own vehicle for work-related travel and some receipts for the grievor's purchase of gas for the government vehicle on the same day for the same travel – grievor claimed that he had travelled to and from the work location twice on the dates in question: once in the government vehicle and again in his own vehicle – his explanation for this was that his supervisor had told him that he could use the government vehicle only when he was transporting other employees or material to and from the work location – he was not entitled to use it to transport only himself – also he was concerned about the reliability of one of the government vehicles and did not wish to drive it after dark – grievor also objected to the employer's lengthy delay in imposing discipline upon him – adjudicator did not find grievor's explanation to be credible – employer's policy allowed an employee to use a government vehicle to transport himself to and from a work location – adjudicator was satisfied that the grievor knew this – while the employer's lengthy delay in informing the grievor and imposing discipline was unfair to the grievor, this was necessitated by the criminal investigation into the matter – adjudicator did not believe it had affected the grievor insofar as proof of his case was concerned – furthermore, the employer imposed a lesser disciplinary penalty than it would otherwise have done in light of the special circumstances of the case – penalty appropriate under the circumstances.

Grievance denied.