November 2, 2012
41.4.38
Background
The employee grieved the Employer's decision to deny the request for reimbursement of relocation expenses.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor was working in Location A when the grievor requested a transfer to Location B in the summer of 2009. In November 2009, the grievor was verbally advised by the then Assistant Director of Location A that the request had been granted and that the grievor would report to Location B effective January 18, 2010. At that time a number of the grievor's colleagues were similarly engaged in transfers to other institutions. One of these colleagues approached local management on behalf of the group in order to enquire as to whether relocation expenses would be reimbursed, as they had at the time that they initially reported to Location A. The representative of the group was informed that the NJC Relocation Directive (Directive) does not apply to transfers initiated at the request of employees. This information was relayed to the grievor who then began the relocation process in early December 2009.
The grievor reported for work at Location B on January 18, 2010 and received a letter of offer on January 27, 2010. The letter of offer indicated that the grievor was entitled to relocation assistance under the Directive. As a result, the grievor contacted the Departmental resource person in order to receive reimbursement of relocation expenses. The grievor was advised that the grievor was no longer eligible for reimbursement as relocation activities had proceeded without receiving prior approval.
With respect to the Department's allegation that the grievance is untimely, the Bargaining Agent representative noted that no such objection was raised in the Employer's first and second level replies. Consequently, and in accordance with established practice, the Department should be barred from raising an objection on the basis of timeliness.
Not only did the Employer neglect to inform the grievor of entitlements under the Directive but it also failed to abide by section 2.2.1.2 of the Directive which stipulates that the Employer must advise employees not to proceed with any relocation-related activities prior to consulting with the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP). Furthermore, the Employer provided misinformation regarding the grievor's rights under the Directive when it was approached in 2009 regarding relocation assistance.
The Employer did not inform the grievor of the entitlement to reimbursement under the Directive until the grievor's relocation was completed and 9 days after reporting for work at Location B.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the intent of the Directive is to facilitate the relocation of employees and as such requested that the grievor be reimbursed relocation expenses in the amount of $4,927.94, as per the Directive.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative noted that the grievance should be considered untimely as the grievor was informed on July 7, 2010 that relocation-related expenses would not be reimbursed and yet did not file a grievance until April 13, 2011. Furthermore, the transmittal of the grievance to the second level exceeded the 10 days provided for in the grievor's collective agreement. The representative therefore asked that the grievance be denied on basis of timeliness.
The Departmental representative also addressed the merits of the grievance. 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 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.
Although the grievor received the letter of offer after commencing work at the new location, the grievor cannot plead ignorance with respect to obligations under the Directive as the grievor had benefitted from the NJC Integrated Relocation Directive at the time of the initial appointment in 2008. While the grievor had not been formally advised of entitlements under the Directive and had not been referred to relocation contact persons within the Department or the CRSP, the grievor could have sought information prior to undertaking relocation activities. It was indicated that employees at Location A are generally aware of the relocation process and the availability of resource persons.
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 failed to respect section 2.2.1 of the Directive in that it did not provide correct relocation information to the grievor in a timely fashion. The grievor was expected to effect a legitimate relocation without prior authorization from the Employer by way of a letter of offer. As such the grievor is entitled to applicable expenses as allowable under section 12 of the Directive. The Committee further notes that a review of expenses should take into consideration the fact that the grievor was unable to receive authorized relocation services. As such the grievance was upheld.
The Executive Committee also noted that the Committee did not consider the issue of timeliness as the Employer did not raise the matter at any of the previous levels of the grievance procedure and it is outside the Committee's purview.