July 12, 2013
41.4.44
Background
The employee moved from City A to City B as a result of an employee-requested relocation. The employee chose not to use the moving company assigned by the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (Brookfield) as the quote was double what was indicated during a previous enquiry. The employee ultimately hired a company without using the Central Removal Services (CRS).
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that in the course of the grievor's relocation preparations a number of moving companies were contacted to obtain estimates. Once the grievor received the letter of offer and the relocation file was opened, a particular moving company was assigned. The company in question provided a quote of $7,000. During the course of previous enquiries, the same company had quoted a fee of $3,500. The grievor consulted Brookfield and an expert within the Department before ultimately cancelling the moving arrangements made by the former. The grievor contracted another moving company and paid $1,887.10 for their services.
The representative indicated that the grievor's decision to make alternate arrangements was in line with section 1.2.1 of the Directive which states that the aim shall be to relocate an employee in the most efficient fashion, at the most reasonable cost to the public while having a minimum detrimental effect on the employee and Departmental operations. The representative submits that to accept what is tantamount to price gouging would not be at the most reasonable cost.
The representative stated that it is not the intent of the Directive that employees be placed in a circumstance where the cost of their relocation exceeds their entitlements under the Directive. Had the grievor utilized the company assigned, the cost of moving household goods and effects would have exceeded the $5,000 allotted under the Directive. The grievor would have been out of pocket $2,000 as a result of the decision in addition to all other relocation related expenses which would fall outside of the entitlements.
The representative further indicated that section 1.2.4 of the Directive stipulates that relocation expenses must be clearly reasonable and justifiable and that the provisions shall not open the way for the underwriting of extravagances. It was suggested that the reimbursement sought by the grievor does not constitute an extravagance whereas the fee proposed by the Brookfield-assigned moving company was extravagant.
The Bargaining Agent representative therefore requested that the grievance be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative indicated that prior to cancelling the move order on March 9, 2011, the grievor was informed by both a Departmental contact and a Brookfield representative that in order to receive reimbursement for the relocation of the household goods and effects the relocation must be made through CRS as any other method would forfeit the benefit. The representative noted that section 12.1.5 of the Directive directs that the shipment of the relocating employee's household goods and effects be made through CRS.
The representative submitted that although the grievor is aggrieved by the fact that the household goods and effects were not shipped by the moving company assigned, it was in fact the grievor's choice not to have the relocation completed through CRS. The Department made the appropriate arrangements as per the Directive however the grievor elected not to use the service arranged.
The representative suggested that by choosing to hire movers, the grievor elected to assume full responsibility for the costs associated with the movement of household goods and effects. Therefore the grievor should not be rewarded for intentionally disregarding policy.
The representative indicated that while some of the grievor's concerns may have merit the grievance procedure is not the proper forum to address these. As the Directive is co-developed by Employer and Bargaining Agent representatives, any concerns should be identified during the cyclical review process.
Consequently, the Departmental representative requested that the grievance be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Relocation Committee and could not reach consensus. As such, the Committee reached an impasse.