September 1, 1989
25.4.63
The grievor sought reimbursement of the costs of shipping a vehicle to a post.
The grievor was on assignment in Mexico City where motor vehicles were provided to staff under FSD 30. During January 1988, the post was surveyed from Ottawa as to whether or not the FSD 30 system should be retained, and the mission responded in February 1988 recommending retention. In May 1988, a general telex was sent from Ottawa to all posts outlining the transitional administrative measures developed for posts which were to be removed from the FSD 30 system and for whom car shipments were now to be permitted. The grievor assumed that the instructions applied to his mission, and as he met the other criteria set-out in the telex he purchased a vehicle and applied for approval to ship it to post. As the recommendation of the mission to retain FSD 30 had been accepted, the transition instructions did not apply and the request for a car shipment was denied. The grievor made his own arrangements to relocate the car to post, and grieved the department's refusal to reimburse him the costs of that relocation.
The Administrative Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee in that the grievor had been dealt with within the intent of the Directive.
The Administrative Committee noted that the Foreign Service Directives Committee reported that although the telex outlining administrative guidelines was not wholly clear, and open to misinterpretation, it did contain specific instructions which were not followed.
The grievance was denied.