# Transport within place of duty



## SupersonicMax (23 Aug 2019)

I have a question about travelling within your place of duty.

Let’s say you are employed at location X in city A and are regularly required to travel and work from location Y still in city A (not on TD: as part of your regular employment, about 2-3 times a week).  There is paid parking at both locations.  The travel to/from X and Y is 15 km one way.  What, if anything, are we entitled for reimbursement?  Please support your answer with references.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2019)

CFTDTI chapter 5, section 5.20 would apply.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/benefits/canadian-forces-temporary-duty-travel-instructions.html#chap5

If using a crown owned vehicle, 5.34b is authority for parking reimbursement.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Aug 2019)

What if ordered to use a private vehicle?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Aug 2019)

5.41 PMV - driver - administration
1. (Application) This instruction applies to instruction 5.40 (PMV - Driver). 
2.(Maximum Distance) Except when unusual operational imperatives demand otherwise, an approving authority shall not require a member to drive on duty travel more than 500 kilometres per day during regular work hours. 
3.(Cost Comparison) The cost comparison required under paragraph 5.40(2)(b) shall be calculated in a manner determined by and on a form issued by the DGCB. 
4.(Refusal of request) A member cannot be ordered and is never obliged to use a PMV for duty travel. 

And if the mbr is requested to use PMV and does...CFTDI Ch 5, 5.40.

5.40 PMV - driver
1.(Member Is Requested To Use PMV) Subject to paragraph 5.20(2) (Selection), a member - who is requested by an approving authority to use a PMV on duty travel and who uses that PMV as requested - is entitled to be reimbursed: 
a.the kilometric rate for the direct road distance; 
b.the actual and reasonable parking expenses during the TD or attached posting; and 
c.if the member is required to purchase additional insurance to carry passengers for business purposes, the actual and reasonable expenses of that additional insurance. 

Also, it's worth having a look at the CFTDI Ch 2 Definitions of Temporary Duty and Permanent & Temporary Workplace.

permanent workplace
a.in respect of a member who is listed on a Primary Reserve List and is serving on Class A, B, or C Reserve Service, the location — inside a place of duty — at which the member performs that Reserve Service; and
b.in any other case, the location — inside a place of duty — of the establishment or other position to which a member is posted — not attached — to perform duty.


temporary duty
a.an attachment - for less than 181 days - outside a member’s place of duty and includes duty travel for the purposes of that attachment; or
b.a duty performed - for less than 181 days - at a temporary workplace and includes duty travel for the purposes of that duty.

temporary workplace
a location — inside a place of duty — at which a member performs duty but does not include the member’s permanent workplace.

The Place of Duty definition in the CFTDI refers back to the definition found in CBI 208.80 which is:

place of duty 
means the place at which an officer or non-commissioned member usually performs their normal military duties and includes any place in the surrounding geographical area that is determined to be part thereof by the Chief of the Defence Staff or such other officer as the Chief of the Defence Staff may designate.

Sounds to me like the mbr in your scenario is being asked to use their PMV to travel to a temporary workplace.


----------



## ballz (23 Aug 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Let’s say you are employed at location X in city A and are regularly required to travel and work from location Y still in city A (not on TD: as part of your regular employment, about 2-3 times a week).



My take on this....

You can only have one permanent workplace. The second location is a temporary workplace and therefore you are on TD. Leadership can try and spin it how they want to say it's not TD, they're wrong to do so.

You cannot be ordered to take you PMV to the TD location, you can be requested and yes you are entitled to the travel benefits in Ch 5 of the CFTDTIs for whatever mode of travel is taken (including parking... but also importantly to this whole scenario, to mileage if using PMV, or a taxi, or a rental, or a staff car and have the gas paid for, etc.).



> *permanent workplace*
> in respect of a member who is listed on a Primary Reserve List and is serving on Class A, B, or C Reserve Service, the location — inside a place of duty — at which the member performs that Reserve Service; and
> in any other case, the location — inside a place of duty — of the establishment or other position to which a member is posted — not attached — to perform duty. (lieu de travail permanent)





> *temporary workplace*
> a location — inside a place of duty — at which a member performs duty but does not include the member’s permanent workplace. (lieu de travail temporaire)





> 5.01 Application
> Subject to Chapter 3 (Application of CFTDTI), this Chapter applies to a member who is:
> 
> on TD *at a temporary workplace* that is inside the member’s place of duty; or....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Aug 2019)

Sorry Ballz...I was adding after my initial post!  On the same page though...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Aug 2019)

Aside from the regulations listed above, how this plays out in practice at my unit is a Minor Travel Expense Claim (MTEC). It requires an approved 2999, an itinerary and a google map prinout with the distance (we have the most commonly used trips saved on our unit website, for convenience).

It is a bit of work, but I do it every single time that I am required to run an errand on behalf of the CAF, as a point of principle.


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Aug 2019)

Thanks all!


----------



## stoker dave (26 Aug 2019)

I am pretty sure that somewhere in the travel orders is something about "most economical method". 

Not every city has good public transit and not all public transit serves DND facilities very well.  However, if it is available be prepared to justify why you can't use public transit.  

Aside:  there are some excellent reasons why, if available, public transit is the best overall option.  You should consider using it whenever possible and practical.


----------



## Remius (26 Aug 2019)

stoker dave said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure that somewhere in the travel orders is something about "most economical method".
> 
> Not every city has good public transit and not all public transit serves DND facilities very well.  However, if it is available be prepared to justify why you can't use public transit.
> 
> Aside:  there are some excellent reasons why, if available, public transit is the best overall option.  You should consider using it whenever possible and practical.



A division I used to work for at NDHQ used to give bus tickets to some locations.  The stink some people would raise over having to take the bus for 15mins...


----------



## Petard (26 Aug 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> A division I used to work for at NDHQ used to give bus tickets to some locations.  The stink some people would raise over having to take the bus for 15mins...



In Ottawa? That takes some kind of ego to get bent over riding the bus there


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Aug 2019)

stoker dave said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure that somewhere in the travel orders is something about "most economical method".
> 
> Not every city has good public transit and not all public transit serves DND facilities very well.  However, if it is available be prepared to justify why you can't use public transit.
> 
> Aside:  there are some excellent reasons why, if available, public transit is the best overall option.  You should consider using it whenever possible and practical.




Section 3 - Transportation benefits

5.20 General
1.(No Entitlement) There is no entitlement for a member to be reimbursed any expenses for travel: 
a.to and from their permanent workplace on a daily basis; and 
b.in respect of a mess dinner, mixed dining-in, or other similar event. 

2.(Selection) An approving authority selects a member’s mode - or combination of modes - of transportation on duty travel after consideration of all of the following: 

a. the relative cost and efficiency of available modes of transportation during the duty travel; 
b. the conditions of road transportation and all other modes of transportation - in the duty travel area; 
c. forecasted weather conditions during the duty travel; 
d. the preferred transportation for short, local trips is by bus, taxi, shuttle, and other local transportation services; 
e. the CF’s operational needs; 
f. an intermediate sedan is the standard rental vehicle across government; 
g. the member’s safety and convenience; 
h. the amount of baggage or supplies that the member is required to transport; and 
I. any other factor that is immediately relevant to the duty travel requirement.


----------



## Remius (26 Aug 2019)

Petard said:
			
		

> In Ottawa? That takes some kind of ego to get bent over riding the bus there



Yep.  We even had canned responses with references.  Plenty of ego in Ottawa.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Aug 2019)

Consider that the people’s time I am talking about is worth $71/hour and that the transit between the locations is approx. 1h each way, I don’t think it’s a stretch to ask for the $15 in mileage and $20 parking.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Aug 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Consider that the people’s time I am talking about is worth $71/hour and that the transit between the locations is approx. 1h each way, I don’t think it’s a stretch to ask for the $15 in mileage and $20 parking to save a total of 1.5 hrs, or $110.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Aug 2019)

I don't disagree...now, what does the approving authority think?   ;D


----------



## ballz (26 Aug 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't disagree...now, what does the approving authority think?   ;D



Time is free.............  :brickwall:


----------



## gcclarke (26 Aug 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> Time is free.............  :brickwall:



One of the worst habits this organization has is the manner in which they treat manpower as if there's no cost associated with it. The same people who will hem and haw about spending 200 dollars on refreshments for an event won't blink twice about having a couple hundred people spend a few days on parade practice for said event.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Aug 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> One of the worst habits this organization has is the manner in which they treat manpower as if there's no cost associated with it. The same people who will hem and haw about spending 200 dollars on refreshments for an event won't blink twice about having a couple hundred people spend a few days on parade practice for said event.



“It’s not the same pot of money” they say...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Aug 2019)

FFS...not the parade stuff again.  Please.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Aug 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> One of the worst habits this organization has is the manner in which they treat manpower as if there's no cost associated with it. The same *people who will hem and haw about spending 200 dollars on refreshments for an event* won't blink twice about having a couple hundred people spend a few days on parade practice for said event.



Because of gotcha $15 orange juice


----------



## Lumber (5 Mar 2020)

Need helps parsing through the regulations to help with an issue that will shortly become a grievance.

BLUF: when traveling to a "temporary workplace" when already on TD to "another duty location", are member entitled to local transportation (or to have transportation put on for them)?

Long version: Members from the west coast were sent to the east coast on TD to attend a course for 5 months. They are therefore stayingp in accomodations and their R&Q is covered for the duration of their stay. The quarters are a 5 minute walk from their place of work (the school). 

Unfortunately, a 1 week portion of the course is taking place at an annex of the school that is approximately 13km away from the main campus and their quarters. These students have no transportation of their own, and no transportation is being provided (either DND transport, or rental vehicles). They either have to find locals (i.e. fellow east coast students) to volunteer to drive them, or take taxis that won't be reimbursed.

Is this against CFTDTIs?

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble figuring out what portion of CFTDTIs, or any other regulation, would apply here. Where does it say that local transportation _shall_ be provided?

I immediately jumped to chapter 5 as I would consider this a "temporary workplace change", but chapter 5 doesn't seem to apply, because transportation benefits require all 4 of a list of conditions to be satisfied, including:
(b) the member was not advised — in writing and at least 30 days beforehand — of the workplace change;
Unfortunaetly, the west coast student _were _ advised, in writing, months in advance, but what were they supposed to do? Rent cars for that one week at their own expense? Beg the east coast students to go out of their way to pick them up? What if there weren't any east coast students on course with them?

Looking at this from a different direction, I've been told before that only 1 chapter of CFTDTIs applies for the entirety of a members TD; you don't flip-flop between different CFTDTIs. Since these guys came from the west coast, their travel for the entire 5 months period would be considered "chapter 7 travel" . (although I don't entirely buy this, because what if while on TD (chapter 7) they got tasked to proceed overseas (chapter 8))

Looking at para 7.01(b):


> (b) member is travelling between their place of duty and another duty location, both of which are in Canada or the Continental United States of America (CANUS);



If we assume "their place of duty" to be the school/quarters and "another duty location" to be the school's annex, then yes, I could see how this would apply. However, when travel was first initiated before their TD even started, "place of duty" would have been considered their west coast unit, and "another duty location" would have been the east coast school (primary location). Can you have TD travel (chapter 7) occuring simultaenous during another period of chapter 7 travel, each with it's own applicaiton/definition of "place of duty" and "another duty location"?

Thanks for any advice!


----------



## kev994 (5 Mar 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Need helps parsing through the regulations to help with an issue that will shortly become a grievance.
> 
> BLUF: when traveling to a "temporary workplace" when already on TD to "another duty location", are member entitled to local transportation (or to have transportation put on for them)?
> 
> ...


So the school knew this months in advance and didn’t think to book a bus?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Mar 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> So the school knew this months in advance and didn’t think to book a bus?



That was my first thought;  "this sounds like a TE issue".  Can't they get something from TEME for the week?


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Mar 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> So the school knew this months in advance and didn’t think to book a bus?



And they wonder why the RCN is having retention issues...


----------



## ballz (5 Mar 2020)

I'm 100% positive that they fall under Chapter 7, not Chapter 5. The entire time they are there, every single day, every single benefit they receive (incidentals, R&Q, etc) is all being paid out because it's authorized by *Chapter 7* of the CFTDTIs.

If, for example, they needed the photocopiers/internet/etc in the middle of their TD task in order to do their job, and the school couldn't provide, they'd be entitled to be reimbursed for those fees under 7.04 - Additional Business Expenses.

If, for example, there is a problem with the water supply that arises in the middle of their TD task, they'd be entitled to reimbursement for bottled water expenses IAW 7.06 - Bottled Water.

Etc.

And it's  an absolute joke that anybody at any point ever thought this arrangement the school is pursuing was in anyway acceptable...

Edit to add: And for the sake of nuance, they are not at their place of duty while they are on TD under Chapter 7. Their place of duty remains the same, as indicated in Chapter 1 definitions... IAW CBI 208.80 which is the geographical area of their permanent workplace/residence. This is why CBI 209.50 specifies "the place where a member is performing a duty," so that you can take LTA while you are on TD outside of your place of duty.


----------



## Lumber (6 Mar 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm 100% positive that they fall under Chapter 7, not Chapter 5. The entire time they are there, every single day, every single benefit they receive (incidentals, R&Q, etc) is all being paid out because it's authorized by *Chapter 7* of the CFTDTIs.
> 
> If, for example, they needed the photocopiers/internet/etc in the middle of their TD task in order to do their job, and the school couldn't provide, they'd be entitled to be reimbursed for those fees under 7.04 - Additional Business Expenses.
> 
> ...



Ok, so if they are on Chapter 7 TD for the duration of their TD, then if they had to take taxis or rent vehicles (or use DND vehicles and pay for gas), then it would tacked onto their claims, and whatever unit provided the FIN code for their TD would pay for it (i'm assuming their home unit on the west coast, which is actually the west coast school).

But, it makes far more sense for the school here on the east coast to have simply planned for TEME to provide a drive and bus (or provide a van if someone on the course has their 404s). If the school out here _did _do that, they would be the ones paying for it.

So, perhaps it is a pissing match between the two units? The west coast wants the east coast to take on the cost as part of their normal operating budgeet, and the east coast wants the west coast to take on the cost as part of the TD claim.

Who then, is actually required to provide this transportation? It is "ideally the east coast would do it, but if they don't, the west coast will be required to reimburse the members"? This seems like the most reasonable answer.

Otherwise, is there anything anywhere that says the school is actually _required_ to provide local transportation to out of area students? Or are they allowed to leave it up to their own devices, knowing that they have travel claims?

Cheers


----------



## ballz (7 Mar 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Ok, so if they are on Chapter 7 TD for the duration of their TD, then if they had to take taxis or rent vehicles (or use DND vehicles and pay for gas), then it would tacked onto their claims, and whatever unit provided the FIN code for their TD would pay for it (i'm assuming their home unit on the west coast, which is actually the west coast school).
> 
> But, it makes far more sense for the school here on the east coast to have simply planned for TEME to provide a drive and bus (or provide a van if someone on the course has their 404s). If the school out here _did _do that, they would be the ones paying for it.
> 
> ...



I've mentioned this elsewhere but this idea of the home unit paying the TD for a course is a completely foreign concept to me, all my dealings with this stuff the unit that is tasked with running the course is funded for everything including the TD, which would resolve this issue real quick as the unit running the course would do what's in it's best interest for it's own budget and would have arranged troop lift, which also happens to be in the best interest of the public (funny how responsibility centres and resources align like that).

But, if this scenario of a pissing match between the units is the case, was the west coast unit ever appraised of the fact that the TD estimate should include the cost of local travel for a week-long period in the middle of the course because... (insert terrible justification here)? That way the person providing EIA/Sect 32 is authorizing these expenditures before the financial approval was given?

If not, at this point the east coast unit has zero authority to authorize an expenditure against the west coast unit's cost centre unless they get a SAF done prior to doing so. And so if this ever did hit DGCB's desk I would _hope_ they would recognize that and say "the east coast unit did not have financial authority over someone else's cost centre to use their cost centre as means of paying for _the logistics of running the course_ (because that's what this transportation issue is... an internal course logistics issue) and therefore the grievance is upheld. You are to bring this grievance decision to the east coast unit's financial services cell to have your local travel expenses paid out." And then the normal end-note stating what to do if the grievance decision is not respected.

Because the issue in a scenario of a budgetary fight really isn't whether or not they are entitled to it... it's just who foots the bill. That said, you'd think two adults wouldn't need a BGen to sort this out for them...


----------



## Lumber (7 Mar 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I've mentioned this elsewhere but this idea of the home unit paying the TD for a course is a completely foreign concept to me, all my dealings with this stuff the unit that is tasked with running the course is funded for everything including the TD, which would resolve this issue real quick as the unit running the course would do what's in it's best interest for it's own budget and would have arranged troop lift, which also happens to be in the best interest of the public (funny how responsibility centres and resources align like that).



Perhaps this situation is unique because 2 different school are actually involved. Let me explain. 

The course has two parts: a theory phase and a practical phase. For the theory phase, the west coast students are posted (posted, not attahh posted) to the west coast school, and compete their studies there, while the east coast students are posted to the east coast school. The practical portion of the course, however, is entirely run on the east coast. So, half way through the course, the west coast students are sent on TD to the east coast. Because they were already posted to and studying at a school, that school (the west coast school) already took on financial responsibility for them. So, their travel to and from the east coast was paid for by the west coast school.

So perhaps the east coast school, knowing this, thinks they aren't responsible for paying for anything to do with the west coast student. 

That being said, that's not exactly the message we got. When we asked about transportation for the west coast students, the answer we got was "it's not in the budget and there's no room in the budget to add it. Stop asking, it's not happening."


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Mar 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Perhaps this situation is unique because 2 different school are actually involved. Let me explain.
> 
> The course has two parts: a theory phase and a practical phase. For the theory phase, the west coast students are posted (posted, not attahh posted) to the west coast school, and compete their studies there, while the east coast students are posted to the east coast school. The practical portion of the course, however, is entirely run on the east coast. So, half way through the course, the west coast students are sent on TD to the east coast. Because they were already posted to and studying at a school, that school (the west coast school) already took on financial responsibility for them. So, their travel to and from the east coast was paid for by the west coast school.
> 
> ...



If I were the student, I would just fail to attend the offsite portion of the course.   

Ok, seriously, the West Coast MH folks on course in Shearwater run into this issue on nearly a daily basis. It was solved by submitting DND 649s to TEME for u-drive vehicles. Yes, I know a fin code is reqd for that.

In your situation, my advice would be to raise and call the East Coast School. Submit a DND 649 to Halifax TEME with the west coast fin code for the week of offsite. Depending on number of students or if none of them have 404s, ask for a driver. The coast to your budget is pretty minimal. Once you do that, take up the issue at your next trg conf.  There really is no question that DND is responsible for their Tpt (in some fashion) while on TD in Halifax.


----------



## kev994 (7 Mar 2020)

I’m not aware of anywhere in the CFTDI saying “entitlement only applies if it’s in the budget”.


----------



## Lumber (7 Mar 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> I’m not aware of anywhere in the CFTDI saying “entitlement only applies if it’s in the budget”.



Lol buts that's the very excuse every unit in the CAF uses when you point out your entitlement to either a layover or business class on an international trip with over 9hrs of flying!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Mar 2020)

Wow.  I am really at a loss trying to understand why the navy is having personnel issues.  https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/royal-canadian-navy-coast-guard-short-hundreds-of-sailors-1.4833232

 :facepalm:


----------



## ballz (8 Mar 2020)

When someone says "it's not in the budget" it's almost certain they don't have a clue what they are talking about, it's the last refuge for the incompetent.

And in this case, it's definitely not true. The east coast school is funded for the task. If they spent their money on something else, that's their problem to explain when they do their financial forecast and have to report their financial pressures to higher.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> In your situation, my advice would be to raise and call the East Coast School. Submit a DND 649 to Halifax TEME with the west coast fin code for the week of offsite. Depending on number of students or if none of them have 404s, ask for a driver. The coast to your budget is pretty minimal. Once you do that, take up the issue at your next trg conf.  There really is no question that DND is responsible for their Tpt (in some fashion) while on TD in Halifax.



The sad part about throwing a bandaid on stuff in the CAF is you end up just creating more long-term problems. I'd let them put me in jail before I start doing TSRs for another unit, on the other side of the country, the for the course that it's responsible to run.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Perhaps this situation is unique because 2 different school are actually involved. Let me explain.
> 
> The course has two parts: a theory phase and a practical phase. For the theory phase, the west coast students are posted (posted, not attahh posted) to the west coast school, and compete their studies there, while the east coast students are posted to the east coast school. The practical portion of the course, however, is entirely run on the east coast. So, half way through the course, the west coast students are sent on TD to the east coast. Because they were already posted to and studying at a school, that school (the west coast school) already took on financial responsibility for them. So, their travel to and from the east coast was paid for by the west coast school.
> 
> ...



So is either or both Comd's actually tracking this issue or is this just all staff back-and-forths at this point?

And also, I know they are on two different coasts so they likely fall under two different L2 HQ because of the way the RCN is organized, but any chance the schools share a common 1-Up Comd?


----------



## dimsum (8 Mar 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If I were the student, I would just fail to attend the offsite portion of the course.
> 
> Ok, seriously, the West Coast MH folks on course in Shearwater run into this issue on nearly a daily basis. It was solved by submitting DND 649s to TEME for u-drive vehicles. Yes, I know a fin code is reqd for that.



Unless things have changed, the Aurora folks from Comox on course in Greenwood also have the same issues.


----------



## Sub_Guy (8 Mar 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Unless things have changed, the Aurora folks from Comox on course in Greenwood also have the same issues.



I don’t know if the folks on MOAT right now have a vehicle or not, but we were getting the students a vehicle from transport.  I don’t know who paid for it.


----------



## Cronicbny (8 Mar 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> And also, I know they are on two different coasts so they likely fall under two different L2 HQ because of the way the RCN is organized, but any chance the schools share a common 1-Up Comd?



Sure is! Commander, Naval Personnel and Training Group, in Esquimalt.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Mar 2020)

IN ARDUA NITOR said:
			
		

> Sure is! Commander, Naval Personnel and Training Group, in Esquimalt.



Lumber, you need to run this issue up the CoC to Comd NPTG. When common sense is no longer common, the Commander needs to get directive.


----------



## Navy_Pete (8 Mar 2020)

That's bizarre, when I was at one of the other schools on the East coast planning courses we included transport for off base site locations for pers on TD as part of the course costs.  It was a non-issue as the couple of students on TD were able to carpool, but we had some taxi chits available if needed.  This was a few years ago before the reorg that FUBARd the schools into one command. We had looked at TEME and there was a kind of break even point where it was cheaper for the students to share a taxi for a return trip then a bus with driver.

This kind of stuff is petty and stupid to me; the costs of staff time to sort this out after the fact is way more then a simple plan ahead and the minor costs of a rental or two and gas for a week (the govt rate is much less then you would get walking off the street)


----------



## ballz (8 Mar 2020)

First I'd have the school finance staff get it direct from the NPTG's N8 (or whatever they are using for finance) that the task to run the course, inclusive of the internal logistics of the course, were funded... not that matters, if it wasn't funded they still got the task so they just report it as a financial pressure.

Then I'd give the east coast staff a warning, with the N8's input attached, "hey, this is going to the Command level next if you don't smarten up..." and then arm the Commander with the proper info so that when he calls his peer out, he's got his ducks lined up.

After that it's no longer your problem.

But the reason I ask about the common 1-up is because if his peer is still not getting it, your Commander essentially has three options (which you can essentially lay out for him)... 
1. Fund himself to avoid conflict, I'd recommend against that.
2. Do nothing and screw the members over as they will then have to submit grievances, plus you don't know even know how that's going to go... I'd also recommend against that; or 
3. Tell his peer, "hey man, I gave you the opportunity to do the right thing without getting our boss involved. If you get hit by the bus, you did it to yourself" and then go ask the 1-up for adjudication.... I'd recommend this, especially if the 1-up N8 is already on your side.


----------

