March 29, 2000
21.4.653
The employee grieved management's failure to reimburse him for all reasonable expenses incurred during his transfer from the East Coast to the West Coast and for the sale of his home to the Crown. The grievor requested that expenses incurred to supply caretaker services for his home during the period of October 1996 to September 1997 be reimbursed and all other remedies deemed just in the circumstances.
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the employee was relocated by the Employer after being declared surplus in April 1996. The employee was offered a position with another Department in October 1996. His prime residence was in location ‘X' and, when relocated to location ‘Y', he rented an apartment while his house in location ‘X' was assessed for sale under the Home Owner Assistance Plan (HOAP). This plan compensates home owners by purchasing the residence of qualified home owners where their house cannot be sold privately after listing it on the market for 6 months.
The employee was granted Temporary Dual Residence Assistance (TDRA) in accordance with the Relocation Directive in the amount of $600.00 per month, for ten months, from December 1996 until September 1997 inclusively, to offset the cost of maintaining the second residence in location ‘Y'. The employee's home in location ‘X' was purchased by the Crown in September 1997.
The employee received verbal assurances from his home Department that all costs relating to the appraisal, listing and eventual sale of his property would be covered by the Department.
The employee was obligated to pay a caretaker to look after his property in location ‘X' since it was a condition of his home Department that the property remain vacant and that there be heat in the home. Furthermore, in order to comply with insurance policies, the employee was obligated to have someone supervise the property on a regular basis. Furthermore, the provision of the TDRA clearly states that real estate firms do not recommend that homes be left unoccupied during the selling period as it generally results in delays in sales and in lower prices.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee report which concluded that because of the unique circumstances of this case and the evidence brought forth demonstrating that the individual had indeed incurred legitimate expenses related to his relocation that had not been reimbursed, the Committee agreed that the grievor had not been treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive.
The grievance was allowed.