June 20, 2012
41.4.48
Background
The employee grieved the Employer's decision not to reimburse storage costs of household goods and effects, accommodation and meals during unload/unpack days and the provision of an incentive for the reduction of commercial accommodation costs.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that only the issue of storage costs incurred between January 28 and March 17, 2010 and reimbursed from the personal fund and the denial of the incentive for reduction of commercial accommodation incurred after April 1, 2009 remain outstanding. Reimbursement of storage costs ought to have been made from the core fund as section 11.7 of both the NJC Integrated Relocation Directive (2005) and the NJC Relocation Directive (2009) provides for "actual and reasonable expenses up to the last day for which Interim Accommodation, Meals and Miscellaneous Relocation Allowance (IAM & MA) is authorized. It was noted that the grievor's IAM & MA period was extended due to Location A's exceptionally tight housing market. Consequently, the decision to deduct storage costs from the grievor's personalized fund was incorrect.
It was also submitted that once the NJC Relocation Directive came into effect on April 1, 2009, the previous directive was replaced. As such, all costs incurred by the grievor from April 1, 2009 onwards are subject to reimbursement under the new directive. NJC precedent in grievances 21.4.869 and 41.4.6 supports the interpretation that the applicable directive is determined by the date actual costs were incurred as opposed to when the grievor's relocation file was opened.
Given the Bargaining Agent's position that the NJC Relocation Directive (2009) should apply, the grievor is entitled to receive the Hotel-Motel Room Reduction Savings/Incentive per section 3.4.3.4 of said directive. The grievor's family size entitled the grievor to 2 rooms however only 1 was used. As such, the grievor should have received the flat rate incentive of $50.00 per night over 43 nights.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that $2550.55 should be credited to the grievor's personalized fund: $400.55 for storage in transit costs that were incorrectly deducted and $2150 in Hotel-Motel Room Reduction Savings/Incentive. It was also noted that these monies should be subject to interest from the date from which the personalized fund should have been paid out.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative indicated that section 5.6 of the NJC Integrated Relocation Directive (2005) stipulates that IAM & MA is not to be extended beyond 30 days total. The grievor was approved for 30 days of IAM & MA for the period of September 26 to October 26, 2009 from the core fund. On November 17, 2010 the grievor submitted a business case for the extension of IAM & MA beyond the 30 day maximum from the core fund. The Employer denied the request for extension however it did advise that the grievor could seek reimbursement from the personalized fund of which the grievor was informed on February 16, 2011. Therefore IAM & MA was not extended and, as outlined in section 11.7 of the NJC Integrated Relocation Directive (2005), the grievor is not entitled to further reimbursement under the core fund. The grievor was reimbursed for storage costs for the period of January 28 to March 17, 2010 however the funds came from the personalized fund.
It was also submitted that as the grievor's relocation was registered under the NJC Integrated Relocation Directive (2005), the grievor is not eligible to receive the Hotel-Motel Room Reduction Savings/Incentive, a position that was confirmed by the Employer. The Departmental representative referenced the decision in grievance 41.4.27 in which the Executive Committee determined that only relocation files registered with the contracted relocation service provider prior to the effective date of the 10% Home Sale Assistance were eligible to receive the benefit. It was also noted that had the intent been to grant the Incentive retroactively, a separate effective date from that of the Directive would have been identified.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded that the employee was treated within the intent of the NJC Integrated Relocation Directive. It was agreed that the grievor had received the maximum allowable under the core fund for storage of household goods and effects and IAM & MA. Additional costs incurred beyond the 30 day limit (October 26, 2009) were not covered under the IAM & MA and were therefore properly reimbursed from the personalized fund. The Committee also agreed that the applicable directive is the NJC Integrated Relocation Directive (2005) as it was in effect at the time of registration of the grievor's relocation. As such, the grievance was denied.