Allocation crown - Housing

The grievor sought the authorization to occupy Crown housing on an indefinite basis and to continue in the present housing until such time as the grievance is resolved to the grievor's satisfaction; that she be compensated for costs incurred as a result of the denial of Crown housing, and any other remedy deemed just in the circumstances.

The grievor owned a mobile home which she could no longer afford. The grievor had an opportunity to sell the home and requested Crown housing. The request was approved. However, the prospective buyers withdrew their offer, and the grievor withdrew her request for housing. The grievor eventually sold the home and requested that she be allowed to move into Crown housing. The request was denied.

The Bargaining Agent contended that it was denied on the basis that she was a local hire. A house had been available at the time the grievor made the request, but it was provided to another employee. The grievor ended up moving in with that employee who no longer resides in the accommodation. The representative argued that the Living Accommodation Charges directive makes no reference to local hires but rather that housing shall be allocated in an order of priority, one of which is employees having inadequate housing.

The departmental representative explained that Crown housing had been provided on a few occasions to employees who resided locally but that following a study which determined that some units were surplus to requirements and would be turned over to Public Works once vacant, the Department changed its policy. The Department made the unit in question available to the grievor on an interim basis while the grievance was being dealt with. The representative maintained that the provision of Crown housing is left to the employer's discretion.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Rental of Government Housing Committee report. Given that the Department had not provided evidence confirming that employees had been informed of the change in policy with respect to the provision of Crown housing, and the employee had previously been offered Crown housing, the Executive Committee agreed that the grievor had not been treated within the intent of the Living Accommodation Charges directive in that the policy had not been applied equitably.

To the extent that the above meets the corrective action sought, the grievance was upheld.