December 18, 2013
41.4.58
Background
The grievor, who was employed in City A, returned to work in March 2011 following a one year absence for medical reasons. As part of a duty to accommodate request, the grievor worked in several positions before ultimately returning to a previous position. The grievor was offered a position based out of City B, on November 17, 2011. The letter of offer indicated that the employee qualified for relocation assistance. The grievor opted not to relocate and continues to reside in City A.
In September 2012, enquiries were made as to whether the grievor was entitled to receive relocation benefits and was, after much exchange, advised that this was an employee-requested relocation. Consequently, the grievor received a non-accountable incidental allowance in the sum of $650 only. The grievor filed this grievance in October 2012.
Brookfield and TBS subsequently advised the Department that there is no entitlement to relocation benefits when an employee does not relocate. The Department was also informed that the amount previously paid to the grievor should be recovered however it has not yet initiated the recovery.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that when the grievor began work at the new position based in City B on December 1, 2011 relocation had not yet been determined. Ultimately the grievor decided not to relocate and continues to reside with the family in City A when not on duty.
The representative indicated that further to information received from a colleague, the grievor made enquiries within the Department as to entitlements under the Relocation Directive. The grievor was advised that a physical relocation was not required in order to access benefits under the Directive. However, this was subsequently retracted on the basis that the grievor no longer qualified for assistance as this was an employee-requested relocation.
The representative also indicated that much confusion ensued on the issue of employee versus Employer requested relocation. It was submitted that the language within the Directive surrounding employee-requested relocations is clear. Section 12.1.2 indicates that in order for a relocation to be considered employee requested written certification must be provided. Certification must state that had the vacant position not been filled as a result of an employee-requested transfer, it would have been filled through normal staffing procedures without relocation expenses being incurred. The representative noted that no such certification was issued and as such the grievor's relocation must be classified as Employer-requested. Consequently, the grievor is entitled for the following assistance, as set forth in the Directive:
3.4.2 Non-accountable incidental expenses and transfer allowance;
3.4.2.2 Transfer allowance;
3.4.3 Core benefit transferable savings/incentives.
It was noted that the provision of relocation benefits to employees who did not physically relocate was a standing Departmental practice. The representative therefore submitted that the grievor should not be excluded from receiving relocation assistance. In the event that the Department wishes to revise its policy any change in practice should be applied to future relocations and must be clearly communicated to employees.
The Bargaining Agent representative therefore requested that the grievance be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative acknowledged that there was confusion surrounding whether the grievor's relocation was employee or Employer-requested. However, the representative suggested that this question is not relevant given that the grievor did not relocate and did not incur any relocation expenses.
The representative also conceded that in the past employees had been provided with relocation benefits despite no physical relocation having taken place. It was indicated that this practice was a direct result of guidance provided to the Department in January 2007 by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) Program Authority for the Integrated Relocation Directive. In November 2012, following the filing of the present grievance, the Department contacted TBS indicating that it was providing employees who chose not to relocate with the incentive not to sell, the Non-Accountable Incidental Allowance of $650 and the transfer allowance (equivalent to two weeks salary) and to seek written direction. It was subsequent to this request that TBS revised its direction and advised that nothing in the Directive supported reimbursing employees for expenses they did not incur. It was noted that the Department immediately corrected its practice and informed all Finance coordinators of the error.
The representative submitted that despite the error that occurred within the Department, the grievor is not entitled to relocation assistance as there was no relocation and no expenses incurred. As the grievor's residence remains unchanged there have been no detrimental effects on the employee and the family and no out-of-pocket expenses. It was noted that the intent of the Directive is the direct reimbursement of relocation expenses of which none exist.
The Departmental representative therefore requested that the grievance be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded that the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Directive as he did not relocate and no relocation expenses were incurred. As such, the grievance is denied.