December 1, 1993
25.4.90
The grievor sought payment of a claim for real estate and legal fees.
The employee was hired by the Department in 1984 through an open competition process. At the time of hiring the employee resided in another city and maintained residence in both cities until the time of posting to a foreign country in 1986. At the time of her employment, the employer provided some relocation assistance upon initial appointment as provided for in the Relocation Directive. Her spouse remained at the residence, in the city of origin, until he eventually joined her on her assignment in 1987.
As of February, 1991 the employee signed a declaration to the effect that her principal residence was the city in which she was employed by the department in 1984 and which resulted in an entitlement for Property Management Fees for part of the period on which she was on assignment outside the country.
The employee did specify however in her declaration that paragraph 2 which states that "I further declare that I occupied the above residence immediately prior to my assignment abroad, and that my intention is to reoccupy it upon my return" was deleted as it did not apply because upon her return she could not occupy the premises due to the fact that she was provided with only a short notice of her return, and that the premises had been re-rented for one year.
According to the employee, the residence was purchase in 1988 with the intention that they would move in upon return from her posting. Upon their return it was felt that the residence in question was not big enough to hold ail of their belongings so another property was purchased.
The bargaining agent took the position that from the time of the employee appointment and until the time she was assigned a posting to a foreign country, the employee principal residence remained in the city from which she was hired and commuted to and from to be with her spouse.
The department took the position that it was clearly stated in the original letter of offer of employment that the employee, having been hired through an open competition process, was entitled to removal expense as specified in the Treasury Board Relocation Directive; and that the employee did receive relocation assistance on appointment. Therefore the employee is not entitled to real estate and legal fees associated with the sale of her previous residence in another city.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee in that the employee was treated with the intent of the Directive.
The grievance was denied.