November 2, 2012
41.4.45
Background
The employee grieved the Employer's decision not to reimburse relocation costs.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent explained that the grievor was verbally offered a position in Location A in August 2010 which was accepted. The grievor subsequently contacted the Assistant Director of Operations of Location B at the time to determine whether a formal letter of offer was required to be signed. The grievor was advised that there was no such requirement and was directed to report to Location A on September 27, 2010. The grievor also approached management to enquire as to whether there was a paid leave entitlement in order to conduct the relocation as well as relocation assistance. The grievor was informed that both were ineligible as the relocation was employee requested.
The grievor later discovered that a colleague who had effected the same transfer, also at the employee's request, received relocation assistance as per the Directive. The grievor therefore contacted human resources to receive reimbursement for relocation expenses. The grievor was informed that it was now too late to seek reimbursement as it was clearly outlined in the letter of offer. The grievor then informed the contact person that such a letter had not been received.
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor received a letter of offer for the position in question on June 2, 2011, however, the document made no mention of relocation assistance and the Employer continued to refuse to provide the reimbursements to which the grievor is entitled.
Not only did the Employer fail to inform the grievor not to undertake any relocation-related activities prior to consulting with the third-party service provider as stipulated in section 2.2.1.2 of the Directive but it also provided misinformation by advising that the grievor was not entitled to assistance under the Directive. The grievor cannot be held responsible for the Employer's failure to provide a letter of offer and to undertake the necessary steps with both the grievor and the third-party service provider.
The Bargaining Agent representative therefore recommends that the grievance be upheld and that the grievor's relocation expenses totaling $1,980.63 be reimbursed.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative indicated that section 2.2.2.2 of the Directive requires employees to obtain written authorization prior to incurring any relocation expenses. Employees who proceed with relocation prior to authorization are personally financially responsible for their relocation expenses. Likewise, section 2.2.2.1 of the Directive stipulates that employees shall read the Directive and consult with the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP) prior to engaging in any relocation-related activities. The representative stated that the grievor did not fulfill the obligations with respect to either of these sections of the Directive.
The grievor could not be considered to have been unaware of the Directive as information at the Employer's disposal indicates that all employees are cognizant of the Directive. Requests for transfers to other institutions are commonplace in Location B. Employees are often in communication with finance as soon as their transfers are confirmed and prior to receiving their letters of offer. Also, several other employees were registered with the Relocation Program within the same period that the grievor received the transfer.
The Departmental representative submitted that the absence of the letter of offer did not prevent the grievor from obtaining authorization prior to incurring relocation-related expenses. However, as the grievor failed to do so the grievor is personally liable for the relocation costs.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded that the grievor had not been treated within the intent of the Directive.
The Committee noted that the Employer did not meet its obligations under section 2.1.1 as it did not provide authorization in advance in writing nor did it meet its responsibilities under section 12.1.2 as the employee was not reimbursed relocation expenses as provided for under the Directive and the Employer did not certify that the position in question would have been filled through normal staffing procedures without relocation expenses being incurred. As a result, the grievor should be provided with the full provisions of the Directive. As such, the grievance was upheld.
The Executive Committee also noted that the Relocation Committee expressed concern over the Employer's apparent lack of understanding of its responsibilities under the Directive, namely the duty to provide full, accurate and timely information to employees.