Temporary Dual Residence Assistance

The employee grieved that she was not treated fairly within the intent of the Relocation Policy under section M-37 of the Master Collective Agreement, NJC agreements. The grievor requested fair treatment and compensation for the period of time it denied.

On July 25, 1997 and as a result of a competition, the grievor was offered a position (location B) located at 55 kms from her workplace (location A). The grievor signed a Relocation Questionnaire on August 14, 1997. She reported to location B on August 30, 1997, and on October 3, 1997, she received a written Relocation Authority. The relocation was completed in July 1998 as the family residence at location A was sold and the employee's family joined the employee at location B.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor was authorized to relocate two months after accepting the position at location B and that she was authorized to commute 110 kms a day at the employee requested rate. He maintained that the grievor should have been reimbursed at the employer requested rate based on the Relocation Directive, article 1.7.4:

"… an employee-requested transfer that results in an authorized relocation to a position at the appropriate group and level which is vacant on arrival at the new place of duty shall be deemed to be an employer-requested relocation…".

The Bargaining Agent representative further indicated that in January 1998, after commuting 110 kms a day (2 hours a day) for a few months, the grievor decided to rent an apartment at location B. The rent was $800.00 a month for 7 months, up to July 1998 when the family residence was sold. During that period of time, the grievor was reimbursed for mileage at the employee requested rate but the Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor should have been reimbursed at the employer requested rate or that she should have been entitled to benefits under the TDRA (Temporary Dual Residence Assistance).

The Bargaining Agent representative believed that the terms and conditions of the relocation were not discussed with the employee before October 1997, more than 2 months after her acceptance of the new position at location B, that in fact, it was not a real discussion that took place but more the provision of one section of the Relocation Directive. The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that because the grievor was not provided with a copy of the directive or with the proper advice and counseling regarding the disruption of her family life, there was a violation of the Relocation Directive, article 1.2.2, a) and c):

"Once a relocation has been authorized: a) the employer shall immediately provide the relocating employee with a copy of this chapter and the name and telephone number of the departmental contact who will assist the employee interpreting this directive; and c) every attempt will be made to ensure that the timing of the relocation, and the travelling associated with it, is convenient to both the employer and the employee. The relocation should be planned to minimize disruptions to family life, and to minimize the costs of the employer; to this end, managers shall ensure that employees who are relocating receive appropriate counseling and also that employees' enquiries regarding this directive are answered promptly and accurately."

The Departmental representative indicated that the employee was essentially grieving the fact that she was not granted the benefits under the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan (GHSP) and Temporary Dual Residence Assistance (TDRA).

The Departmental representative referred to the letter of offer, dated July 25, 1997, which stated that the offer may entitle the employee to benefits as outlined in the Relocation Directive and to contact Finance for further information. The letter also read not to incur any costs until receiving written authorization for the relocation.

The Departmental representative maintained that the Authority to Relocate, accepted by the grievor on October 3, 1997, approved the following relocation items:

• Househunting trip (mileage and food only);
• TDRA (Commuting Assistance only);
• Transportation and travel expense en route;
• Disposal of accommodation (Home Sale Plan not authorized)
• Acquisition of accommodation
• Shipment of household effects
• Incidental relocation expenses.

With respect to TDRA, management took into consideration the relatively low distance of 55 kms that the employee would travel to and from work, and that many other employees currently drive the same distances at their own expenses. However, Commuting Assistance was offered because the grievor was the successful candidate on a competition. The Departmental representative referred to the Relocation Directive, Purpose and scope:

"… in any relocation, the aim shall be to relocate the employee in the most efficient fashion, that is, at the most reasonable cost to the public yet having a minimum detrimental effect on the transferred employee and family."

With regard to the GHSP, the Departmental representative pointed out that each department is responsible for managing and funding that program, that departments have sole discretion in determining which employees are offered the GHSP. Given that the grievor would be moving a relatively low distance (55 kms), and that the market at the time was "soft" ie. a sale within 3 months could result in a loss of several thousand dollars, the department opted to reimburse commuting for up to 9 months. The Departmental representative noted that the NJC had reviewed the issue of GHSP in the past and had concluded that it lacked jurisdiction.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee report which concluded that the employee had not been treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive, article 1.2, in that it was not demonstrated that pertinent information was provided to her in a timely manner.

From the commencement of appointment on August 30, 1997 to the point when the Relocation was approved, on October 3, 1997, the Committee agreed that the employee was not treated within the intent of the Travel Directive, article 2.12; the employee should have been reimbursed for mileage at the employer requested rate.

From October 3, 1997 to December 31, 1997, the Committee agreed that the employee was treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive, article 2.16.1, in that for that period of time, she was reimbursed for Commuting Assistance at the employee-requested rate.

From January 1998 to June 1998, where two residences were maintained, the Committee agreed that the employee was not treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive, article 2.12.3; she should have been entitled to TDRA (Temporary Dual Residency Assistance).

For the month of July 1998, the Committee noted that as per the Relocation Directive, article 2.18.4, the Deputy Head has discretion in the application of TDRA, which may be exercised retroactively.

The grievance was upheld to the extent noted above.