Shipment of Personal Effects

The grievor disagreed with the Department's position that he should be charged for excess weight on his shipment of personal effects from London to Canada after 14 consecutive years of service overseas. The grievor maintained that he had no idea his shipment was overweight when shipped from Tokyo to London, it was even assumed it was under. The grievor refers to FSD 15.14. The grievor believed that he should not be held liable for any additional costs associated with the shipment of personal effects from London to Ottawa.

In August 1997, the grievor, who was posted in London, returned to Canada. A few days prior his departure from London, when the container was at quay side, he was informed that the shipment was 1150 kgs overweight, for a total of 4550 kgs. The authorized weight ceiling was 3400 kgs. In 1993, when the grievor was cross posted from Tokyo to London, his shipment was overweight by 438 kgs (total of 3838 kgs) and the Department never took any recovery action.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor has worked for the Department at different levels since 1966. In the summer of 1997, the grievor returned to Canada after serving overseas for 14 years.

Prior to departure from London, the grievor obtained an estimate of the weight of his personal effects. It indicated that the shipment was overweight. The grievor disposed of a number of surplus items. With only a few days before departure to Canada, the grievor was advised that the shipment was still overweight. Therefore, it it was too late to take further corrective action.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that when the grievor was cross posted from Tokyo to London, in 1993, he did not see the documents associated with the shipment weight. However, he was informed that if the shipment was overweight, he would be charged. As he was not charged, he assumed there was no overweight. The representative stated that the grievor had an informal conversation with a DFAIT Advisor prior to his relocation and that it was conceded that after being abroad for 14 years, there should not be any problems.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the Department has already recovered $2,200 from the grievor's salary for this excess of weight. As well, in 1997, the grievor tried to solve the problem by sending a note to the Department referring to FSD 15.14.1 and explaining the unusual circumstances. The Department replied in July 1997, stating that when effects have been authorized for shipment at public expense to a post, those effects shall be authorized for shipment and/or storage at public expense from that post. According to the grievor, as the effects in question were authorized for shipment from Tokyo to London, the Department was legally obligated to ship those effects from London to Ottawa, at public expense. A comparison of the inventories for each shipment should show that the effects were the same and that no additional effects were added in London.

The Bargaining Agent Representative concluded by recapitulating the following facts:

• the initial estimate showed the grievor was only slightly overweight;
• the grievor has served 14 years overseas without returning to Canada;
• FSD 15.14, Guidelines, Appendix 2, stipulates "In unusual circumstances the overall weight limitations referred to in Section 15.14 may be exceeded with the approval of the appropriate foreign service departmental co-ordinating committee";
• an informal conversation between the grievor and a DFAIT Advisor surmised there would be no problems. Verbal assurance was given but never any written authorization;
• FSD 15.14 b says "When effects have been authorized for shipment at public expense to a post, these effects shall be authorized for shipment and/or storage at public expense from that post."

The Departmental representative raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of this grievance on the basis that the grievance was untimely in that it was not referred to the NJC within time limits.

On the question of the substance of the grievance, the Representative profiled the following chronological events.

• In 1984, the grievor left Canada for Ankara. His weight entitlement was 3,700 kgs and was based on the number of person in the grievor's household, 3.
• In 1986, one dependent, the grievor's daughter, left the post for school. The Department paid for the removal of her personal effects.
• At the end of 1987, the grievor was cross posted to Tokyo. The Department authorized air and sea shipment to a maximum of 1,587 kgs Ankara-Tokyo and the balance of entitlement of 1,206 kgs was shipped Ankara/Ottawa to LTS, for use of the grievor's daughter. The net total entitlement approved based on a household of three persons was 3,700 kgs.
• In January 1988, the grievor arrived in Tokyo, with one dependent.
• On January 12, 1988, the grievor signed new inventories and identified them as "Storage to Canada" and "Kerry to Canada".
• In August 1993, the grievor was cross posted to London with one dependent. The July 6, 1993 message to Tokyo authorized the following shipment, as per the under-mentioned quotations:

"On basis of your estimates we approve expenses ... Shipping of up to max of 650 kgs by air freight and 2,750 kgs by sea freight ...... (total 3,400 kgs)".

"Please note that employee has reached maximum entitlement of 3,400 kgs net shipment will be weighed if overweight, employee will be charged on a prorated basis."

• In June 1997, in preparation for his relocation London/Ottawa, the post advised the grievor that his shipment was estimated to be overweight and that he would be responsible for additional cost. Upon completion of packing, the exact weight was 4,550 kgs. FSD 15.14 states that a shipment of 4,550 kgs is equal to an allocation for a household of 5/6 persons.
• In August 1997, when the grievor returned to Canada, his shipment weight was based on a household of 2 persons. The shipment was overweight by 1,150 kgs.

Concerning the existence of the overweight, the Departmental representative made reference to a note from the grievor to the Department which says "When I transferred from Ankara to Tokyo then from Tokyo to London, I would have had no way of knowing that my shipment would be overweight when it came time to transfer from London to Canada". She maintained that this argument could not be retained given that the grievor was the expert and even the one responsible for advising employees on this subject, adding to the fact that the Department gave clear direction on entitlement authorization. Furthermore, the grievor's statement concerning the 14 years of personnel effect accumulated did not permit DFAIT to gather evidence during its investigation to retain this argument.

The Departmental representative stated that the obvious question was "who authorized the overweight from Tokyo?" given that:

• The grievor's expertise, his incontestable knowledge of the FSDs, which includes the right for any employee to request a review of unusual circumstances that would justify exceeding the weight limitation. This same clause also clearly says that if one does not receive prior approval, the employee may be held accountable for any shipping and related charges attributable to the excess of weight.
• Evidence is that the grievor knew the exact amount of overweight in his shipment two months before his departure and that he reduced his shipment by removing cassettes, magazines, which still left the shipment weight as appropriate to a household of 5/6 persons.
• The grievor's direct involvement in the administrative responsibility of departures and arrivals at each post.
• The grievor never contested that the shipment was overweight nor did he contest the number of persons in his household.

The grievor's 14 years of service is not an unusual circumstance but more a condition of employment.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Foreign Service Directives Committee report which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of section 15.14 b) of the Foreign Service Directives to the extent that he should be reimbursed for 3,838 kgs as authorized to post and be responsible for the difference between the new authorized weight of 3,838 kgs and the actual shipment of 4,550 kgs, that is, 712 kgs. Therefore, the grievance was partially upheld to the extent that it meets the corrective action.