Relocation

The employee grieved that management refused to pay his relocation claim for the time he worked at location "C". He requested to be paid for his expenses incurred during the time he worked at location "C" as claimed under the Relocation Directive.

For the purpose of this report, the grievor's permanent residence is referred to as location "A" while his worksites are referred to as locations "B", "C" and "D". From December 1996 to August 1997 (approx. 10 months), the grievor worked in location "B" at 250 kms from location "A". During this period of time, the grievor received short-term relocation assistance.

From August 11, 1997 to August 31, 1998 (approximately one year), he worked in location "C" at 45 kms from location "A". During this period of time, the grievor did not receive commuting assistance in lieu of short-term relocation assistance. From September 1998 to August 1999 (approximately 11 months), he worked at location "D" at 315 kms from location "A". During this period of time, the grievor received short-term relocation assistance.

On November 24, 1998, management refused to reimburse the grievor for his transportation costs incurred for traveling between location "A" and "C" for the period of August 11, 1997 to August 31, 1998 (approximately one year) for the total amount of $2,060.55. On December 8, 1998, the grievor filed this grievance.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the department incorrectly applied the NJC Relocation Directive by refusing to pay the grievor a commuting allowance in lieu of relocation assistance during his deployment to location "C" work site.

The grievor was offered a deployment to location "C" and his letter of offer made no reference to a relocation or temporary dual residence allowance (TDRA).

The grievor was then offered a position in location "D". During a conversation with a managerial assistant regarding his assignment at location "D", the grievor was informed, for the first time, of the existence of the NJC Relocation Directive. On or about July 27, 1998, the grievor was provided with a copy of the directive.

The grievor then took note of the provisions pertaining to commuting assistance in lieu of TDRA. He subsequently enquired to the department as to why the relocation benefits had not been paid to him during his deployment to location "C". He received no answer at that time.

Because the department failed to comply with section 1.2.1, the employee was not aware of any potential relocation benefits. Furthermore, the department did not provide the employee with a copy of the directive as provided for in section 1.2.2. The department also failed to consider the provision of commuting assistance contrary to section 2.16.1.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that had the department complied with the above mentioned sections, it would have been in the department's best interest to grant the grievor the most cost effective form of assistance under the directive, namely commuting assistance.

The Departmental representative stated that the grievor accepted a term position at location "C" to coincide with the end of his previous term at location "B". The department considered that there was no obligation to relocate the grievor as he was returning home to reside. The Departmental representative stated that other employees working at that site (location "C") commuted a distance of 32 kms. The Department believed that it was, therefore, not unreasonable for the grievor to commute to work from his place of residence (45 kms) which was only 13 kms further than the others.

The Department's analysis of section 1.1.2 of the Relocation Directive is that any relocation over 40 kms is not automatically authorized. Limitation as specified in section 1.1.2 is to be used as a general rule and should also be balanced by the need to relocate to the place of duty. Each situation is reviewed and a decision made on the merit of the situation. Departments expect employees to relocate to the actual place of duty or to a location within commuting distance of it and to move a distance of at least 40 kms closer to that new place of duty.

The terms and conditions of reimbursement for any relocation are discussed and clearly indicated in writing before the fact. This could not have been done in this case as the employee was not being relocated. Furthermore, the offer of employment to work in location "C" made no reference to any relocation or TDRA as the employee was not being relocated. In fact, the grievor returned home to reside after his previous assignment.

The purpose of allowing commuting assistance in lieu of TDRA as provided in section 2.16.1, is to allow employees to try-out commuting as a substitute for a full relocation. Employees who receive commuting assistance while deciding whether to relocate are also eligible for the TDRA if a decision to relocate is made. Since there was no intent of a full relocation, commuting assistance in lieu of relocation assistance was not applicable.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee, which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive. As per section 1.1.2, the department should have considered the possibility of relocation since the grievor's new workplace was located more than 40 kms from his residence. As a result of considering relocation and as per section 1.2.1, the department should have had a discussion with the grievor regarding the terms and conditions of reimbursement. This would have led to a discussion on TDRA and the application of section 2.16.2 would have occurred i.e.: commuting assistance as specified in 2.16.2 for a maximum period of nine months.

Therefore, the Committee agreed to provide for commuting assistance for a maximum period of nine months.

The grievance was upheld to the extent that the above satisfies the corrective action sought.