July 1, 1994
25.4.98
The grievor sought reimbursement of fees for the sale of a principal residence.
In 1990, the employee submitted a claim of $11,975 for reimbursement of fees for the sale of his principal residence. The employer reimbursed this amount and also invited the employee to submit a further claim for legal fees incurred for the purchase of a residence at the time he relocated to the said residence upon his return from his assignment.
In 1993, the employee submitted a claim of $4,460 for reimbursement of fees for the sale of a principal residence. Following an analysis of the employee's file, the Department discovered that his spouse had already claimed reimbursement of real estate fees and legal fees incurred through the sale of his principal residence when his spouse was assigned to Ouagadougou from 1984 to 1986.
The Department informed the employee on August 31, 1993 that he did not therefore qualify for the reimbursement claimed for purchase fees or for the fees for the sale of a principal residence mistakenly paid in September 1990.
The bargaining agent representative took the position that the directive was contradictory as one section of the Directive applied to each employee of an employee-couple and another section only allowed one of the two employees as eligible to claim. Had the grievor not relied on section 3.04, the procedure would not have been the same. The grievor was penalized because of the ambiguity of the policy. The representative took the position that under section 3.04, each spouse was covered by the directive but only one spouse was entitled to claim when the employees were assigned.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee in that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Foreign Services Directive 16 given that in 1984 one employee of the "employee couple" had taken advantage of the provisions available under the Directive for the payment of real estate and legal fees. The Foreign Service Directives Committee noted in the report that FSDs 3.04 and 16.29 were not in contradiction, in that FSD 3.04 specifies that the directives apply to each employee of an employee-couple to the same extent that they do to an unaccompanied except where specific provisions in a particular directive dictates otherwise.
The grievance was denied.
The Executive Committee noted that in the report the Foreign Service Directives Committee had made a recommendation in regard to the payment schedule for the monies owed to the department. The Executive Committee agreed that they lacked jurisdiction to make such a recommendation, however, it was further agreed that the employer could accept the recommendation as a suggestion.