November 2, 2012
41.4.43
Background
The employee grieved the Employer's decision to deny a request for an extension of the relocation period as well as the denial of claims submitted with respect to relocation, from April 1 to June 2, 2010.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor elected not to sell the home in Location A given the depressed housing market. As a result of this decision the grievor later discovered that adequate financing could not be secured in order to purchase a home in Location B. The grievor ultimately signed a one-year lease, as is the standard in Location B, and therefore sought an extension of the relocation period given the lease extended beyond the allotted relocation period. Section 2.13.1 of the NJC Relocation Directive provides for such an extension in exceptional circumstances with the submission of a business case. Section 9.2 specifies that exceptional circumstances may include depressed housing market conditions. As such, the grievor's situation falls within the exceptional circumstances under which the relocation period can be extended.
Although the grievor submitted a business case to the Department on April 26, 2010 the latter did not forward it to the Program Authority at TBS, as required under section 9.2, until September 21, 2011.
The Bargaining Agent representative also indicated that the grievor reported for duty in Location B on April 1, 2010 however from this date until April 15, 2010 the grievor assumed duties other than those of the substantive position as a result of involvement in a special project within the Department.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative acknowledged that the grievor's business case was not forwarded to the Program Authority within the prescribed timeframes however the request was nevertheless transmitted. In denying the business case the Program Authority indicated that the grievor's request did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances under the Directive. Furthermore, the Program Authority indicated that the grievor's circumstances were the result of personal decisions and as such an extension would not be granted.
In accordance with section 3.4.3.1 of the Directive, the grievor received $9,594, representing 80% of real estate commission fees that would have been payable had the home at origin been sold. Likewise, the grievor was approved for and received 30 days of Interim Accommodation, Meals and Miscellaneous Relocation Allowance (IAM&MA) per section 5.7 of the Directive. The grievor's 30 days of IAM&MA began on April 14, 2010. The grievor was also compensated for a number of claims related to the relocation.
The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive with respect to sections 2.13, 9.2 and 5.7. The grievor was not entitled to a one-year extension as requested as the circumstances could not be deemed exceptional as they resulted from personal decisions and an inability to secure financing for a second home.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded that while the grievor had not been treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive with respect to the referral of the business case to the Program Authority under section 9.2, the grievor had been treated within the intent concerning the request for an extension of the relocation period.
The Committee recognizes that a depressed housing market, whether with respect to the sale or purchase of a home, qualifies as a valid exceptional circumstance under section 9.2 of the Directive for the extension of the relocation period per section 2.13.1. However in this instance, once the grievor made the decision not to sell the home at origin the depressed housing market was no longer a factor in the relocation under the Directive.
With respect to the grievor's request to be reimbursed for all claims submitted from the report to duty date of April 1, 2010, the Committee notes that the grievor's status, be it travel or relocation, is unclear. The grievor was nevertheless provided with IAM&MA to the maximum allowable under Part V of the Directive. The Committee recommends that the Department review the grievor's status from April 1 to 14, 2010 and provide reimbursement if applicable.
As such, the grievance was denied.