September 10, 2009
41.4.22
Background
The employee grieved the department's refusal to post authorize relocation expenses related to the purchase of a principal residence.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative is not disputing the fact that the employee purchased a principal residence in the absence of proper written authority. However, the Bargaining Agent representative submitted that sections 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.2.3 of the Relocation Directive use qualifying words and are not meant to be read as absolutes.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the Department failed to take into consideration the extenuating circumstances with regards to the purchase of the residence. The written offer of employment was delayed because of delays in the language testing, the operational requirements of the Department and the support of the grievor's supervisors, and the overall cost savings to the Department.
The Bargaining Agent representative further submitted that the employer failed to adhere to the guiding principles of the Directive, including, Trust, Flexibility, Respect, and Valuing People.
Finally, the Bargaining Agent representative submitted that if the Department was not prepared to accept the grievor's request for reimbursement that they should have in the alternative been prepared to enter into mediation in an effort to resolve the issue.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative submitted that section 2.2.2.2 of the Directive states that an employee must obtain written authorization before incurring any relocation expenses. Furthermore, section 1.2.3 emphasizes that the Directive is not a permissive guideline. The Directive is clear; the employee is responsible for reading and following the Directive and for seeking clarification when necessary.
The Departmental representative maintained that the grievor was fully aware of the consequences of his decision. By proceeding with the purchase of a home before obtaining the results of the language tests and the letter of offer, the grievor took the risk of not being reimbursed. Had he failed one of the three language tests, he would not have received a letter of offer for the position in the other city, and he would have had to accept the financial consequences of his real estate purchase.
The Departmental representative submitted that a special authorization of the expenses related to the purchase of the grievor's home was not warranted in the circumstances.
The Departmental representative submitted for consideration the fact that the grievor was fully refunded for the temporary housing and all living and moving expenses incurred.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive. It was agreed that post-authorization in this case is not appropriate as there was no letter of offer and no ambiguity in the instructions. As such, the grievance was denied.