May 18, 2007
21.4.928
Background
The employee grieved that the NJC Communiqué of September 25, 2002 which concerned short term relocation is inequitable. The grievor claimed that employees benefiting from relocation provisions received varying benefits based of the effective date of their relocation. The employee grieved that these measures are contrary to the NJC principles.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The bargaining agent representative stated that the decision made by the NJC in the communiqué is contrary to the historical fashion in which revisions have been treated.
According to the communiqué, 2 travelers who commenced multi-year assignments only a few days apart would end up receiving very different allowances.
The representative contested the department's argument that the employee accepted the assignment at the level of benefits existing at the time and should not expect anything more. He suggests that similar to letters of offer, which indicate salary, this does not imply that the salary is not subject to any increases. It is commonly known that Directives are re-negotiated on a regular basis, and as such employees can expect to benefit from any accrued rights negotiated into new Directives.
Departmental Representative Presentation
The departmental representative stated the department correctly paid the entitlements to which the grievor was entitled for the period from October 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003.
When the Travel Directive was introduced on October 1, 2002, there was an overlap with the provisions of the Travel Directive for periods of travel status for more than 30 consecutive days, and the Short-Term Relocations of the Relocation Directive. The National Joint Council addressed this overlap in a Communiqué on September 25, 2002. The communiqué indicated that the Short-Term Relocations would still apply to persons who were on Short-Term Relocation before October 1, 2002 and would continue to the end of their assignment.
The representative submitted that the grievor had accepted the entire secondment in February 2002 with the terms and conditions contained therein. The agreement clearly mentions that entitlements would be derived from the Relocation Directive. The agreement was made for two years at the outset, and there were no breaks, nor extensions of the agreement from March 15, 2002 to his acceptance of the indeterminate offer on April 1, 2003.
The departmental representative maintains the department followed the direction outlined in the NJC communiqué of September 25, 2002. Mr. Sauvé continued to receive entitlements as per sections 5.9 to 5.11 of the Relocation Directive, Short-Term Relocations until the time he commenced his relocation as per the IRP on April 1, 2003.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Directive, specifically, the September 25, 2002 Communiqué. As such, the grievance was denied.