January 14, 1998
25.4.125
The grievor sought approval of a claim for an education allowance for his dependant, in the amount of $ 20,660 Cdn.
In May 1996, when the grievor was offered an assignment in Seattle, his dependant was completing Grade 6 in a "gifted" programme at a Catholic school in Ontario. The dependant later gained admission into Grade 8 at a school in B.C. for the following school year.
Consequently, the grievor requested reimbursement for secondary education expenses in Canada. The grievor's request was denied. The Department had agreed to reconsider its decision if the grievor furnished official recognition from the Ministry of Education of B.C. that Ontario Grade 9 is equivalent to B.C. Grade 8 and official concurrence from the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training that B.C. Grade 8 is equivalent to Ontario Grade 9. The grievor was unable to provide the requested documentation.
In the Ontario school structure, Grades 1 to 8 are considered elementary level, and grades 9 to 12 (including Ontario Academic Credits (O.A.C.)) are considered secondary level whereas, the elementary level in the B.C. school structure is Grades 1 to 7, and secondary level is Grades 8 to 12.
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that at the time the grievor was offered the Seattle assignment at the end of May 1996, his dependant was completing Grade 6 in a "gifted programme" at a Catholic school in Ottawa. The family had every expectation that the child would be accelerated into Grade 8.
The grievor travelled to Seattle in early June and contacted five Catholic schools which Mission had presented as possible options. Admission registers were reportedly so full that only one school was prepared to put the dependant's name on the waiting list for Grade 7; it was not, however, prepared to consider acceleration to Grade 8 as the dependant had not been attending the American school system.
Becoming increasingly concerned that a commitment had not yet been made, the family explored other options. British Columbia had several advantages, notably the proximity to Seattle, and the support network of immediate family and close friends residing in Vancouver. This school was so impressed with the dependant's academic records, it admitted the child at the Grade 8 level. The representative conceded that the school in question was not Catholic, however, the family considered the advantages of sending the dependant to B.C. only once Seattle was no longer an option. The representative also noted that there were no Catholic schools in Canada that offered residential facilities. In addition, the grievor was only informed in late August that his dependant had gained admission to the school in Seattle.
In the Bargaining Agent's view, the grievor was not treated within the intent of FSD 34 nor with the relevent section of the Introduction to the FSDs.
The representative maintained that the Department's position to deny educational assistance for a dependent child was untenable. Had the dependant been accepted at the primary school in Seattle, education expenses would have been paid, notwithstanding that the child would have been kept back in grade 7, clearly a "less favourable situation", and detrimental to a gifted child, than the current arrangement which recognizes the dependant's "educational history and personal factors pertinent to the child's education", and reflects the intent of FSD 34, as stated in the Introduction.
It was the Bargaining Agent's position that the grievor's claim should be paid, as proposed, in the amount of $ 20,660 Cdn for the education of his dependant to reflect the intent of FSD 34, as stated in the Introduction.
The Departmental representative stated that the grievor arrived at Post in Seattle in August 1996. The Department accepted the grievor's statement that his dependant was a gifted child and would have skipped Grade 7 in the Ontario system. However, the Department stated that it was not probable that the dependant would have skipped Grade 7 and Grade 8 in the Ontario system had the family remained in the headquarters city.
In reviewing the grievance, the Department considered the Introduction to FSD 34 as well as article 34.04 which specifies that education expenses in Canada are admissible, "depending upon the compatibility of education facilities at the Post and the child's level of education". As well, the Department contended that article 34.02 was clearly intended to be applied to Grade 9 through 12/OAC, or within the province of the employee's residence when serving the headquarters city. In this case, both were Ontario.
It was the Department's position that the grievor was not placed in a less favourable situation. The representative indicated that the grievor was limited to five schools in Seattle because he chose to have his child educated in a Catholic school. The grievor committed to the school in B.C., which was not a parochial school, on July 25, 1997. He did not wait to see if his dependant would be admitted to one of the schools in Seattle. It was also the Department's contention that Seattle public schools were compatible with Ontario's.
The representative stated that the Department's investigation of the grievance did not allow it to conclude that the grievor was not treated within the intent of FSD 34 as there was no evidence that Grade 8 in B.C. is equivalent to Ontario's Grade 9. The amount claimed by the grievor is payable at the Ontario Secondary Grade 9 level only.
The Executive Committee considered the Foreign Service Directives Committee report. The Executive Committee could come to no agreement as to the intent of the directive and therefore came to an impasse on the matter.