December 1, 1995
25.4.110
The grievor sought compensation for the loss of personal effects while in storage.
The grievor, accompanied by her spouse and daughter on a posting in September 1989, placed personal effects in long-term storage.
In August 1991, the grievor left with her daughter for a subsequent cross-posting as her husband was returning to Canada and in October 1991, filed for divorce. The spouse returned to Canada some time around December 1991 and was given access to the personal effects. The grievor maintained that the spouse should not have been given access to them.
The bargaining agent representative stated that when the grievor discovered the unauthorized removal of her personal effects, she immediately notified ABMR. A list of items was subsequently picked up from the spouse's residence and forwarded to the grievor.
When the grievor returned to Canada in 1993, she found most of her personal effects missing and discovered that her husband's residence had been destroyed by fire earlier in the year, her personal effects having vanished in the blaze.
The representative maintained that the storage company allowed access to the grievor's storage based upon authorization supplied by the department. The grievor was the person employed by the department. The goods were placed in long-term storage in the grievor's name. The department had no right to grant access without receiving authorization from the grievor to do so.
The departmental representative stated that in October 1991, the grievor informed Personnel that she was proceeding with a divorce but did not inform the Relocation Division or the storage company.
In February 1992, all the goods were taken from storage and delivered to the spouse. The representative noted that the spouse was named as the client, as he had signed the form when the goods were deposited in storage in 1989, and had also signed when they were released to him in 1992. In July 1992, the spouse returned certain personal effects to storage. The grievor was informed of the items recovered and did not make any claim for any other articles at that time.
The department denied the claim on the basis that the goods were listed in the inventory of goods of both spouses and that the spouse had the authority to remove them. The spouse appeared to have subsequently acquired the goods through the divorce agreement. The grievor did not raise any question about the goods at the time of the divorce agreement or when only some of the goods were returned to her. Basically, the household effects were listed jointly on the inventory, they were placed in storage under the husband's signature, and removed under his signature.
The Executive Committee agreed that the grievor was treated within the intent of FSD 15 given that goods were listed in the inventory as goods belonging to the couple and the relevant storage document had been signed by the grievor's spouse, therefore not precluding him from removing the goods in storage.
The grievance was denied.