Allocation of housing

The grievors sought the provision of Crown housing and requested that all employees be treated equally.

The grievors claimed that a management trainee who should have been considered as a local hire, was provided with a Crown house. The individual in question had been employed by the Government of the Northwest Territories and had been sent south for training purposes. While in Ottawa, the individual was offered a management trainee position with the federal department in question following a competition and was subsequently relocated to Iqaluit to fill a management position on an indeterminate basis.

The bargaining agent representative stated that the first part of the grievance concerned the provision of a housing unit to a management trainee who, for ail intents and purposes, was in fact living in Iqaluit. The grievors questioned the validity of treating this individual as a southern hire since she had lived in Iqaluit prior to being sent on training by the GNWT and was once again residing in Iqaluit.

The second part of the grievance dealt with the equality of treatment between departments who are all subject to the same housing policy. It was noted that other federal departments provide Crown housing to employees including those who are hired locally.

It is the bargaining agent's view that the denial of crown housing to employees who are local hires and who either have no housing because they lost what housing they had or for other reasons cannot continue to be housed in other than Crown housing, is in violation of the principles enunciated at the first part of the Living Accommodation Charges Directive and in respect of the allotment of housing and the priorities for which housing is to be provided.

The departmental representative explained that grievors were claiming that the management trainee should not have been given housing as she was not a southern hire. The representative noted that when the individual was appointed to the management trainee position, she was a resident of Ottawa and had been since 1993.

In December 1994, the department requested a housing unit from PWGSC for the management trainee. The representative stated that it was

known from the very beginning that the additional requirement for Crown housing would be temporary in nature. The unit would be returned to the PWGSC inventory as soon as the former manager vacated his Crown house.

The departmental representative stated that past practice has been that as soon as a unit becomes vacant and there is no immediate future need for the unit, action is initiated to return it to the PWGSC housing pool and that given budget restraints and cutbacks, this practice would continue.

The representative argued that the LAC directive does allow discretion on the part of the department, but it does not direct a department to provide Crown housing to local hires. It was argued that the areas in the Application section of the directive are not applicable to this situation.

The representative did not dispute the grievors' claim that a number of other federal departments provide Crown housing to locally hired staff as they may be able to find funding for ail their employees but stated that it is not the practice of the department in question due to cost considerations.

Management did review the housing situation at that location; however it was decided that due to resource restraints, no additional housing units would be funded.

The department's position is that the grievors were treated within the intent of the LAC Directive and that the directive is applied consistently throughout the NWT.

The Executive Committee considered the Rental of Government Housing Committee report and concluded that the matter before the Committee was a question of equity of treatment between employees. The Committee had previously agreed that allocation of housing should be on a first-come first-served basis where there is vacant housing available; however, that did not apply in this case because the department did not have any houses available. In the case of the management trainee, the employee was a southern hire, having lived in Ottawa since 1993, and the department did not have any houses (owned or pooled), and only requested the house to accommodate the management trainee.

In view of the above, the Executive Committee agreed that the grievors were treated within the intent of the Living Accommodation Charges Directive.

The grievances were denied.