Relocation Directive – Expenses

Background

The employees are presently employed at either location A or B located on the grounds of establishment A. Given the scheduled closure of both locations, the grievors were offered and accepted a position at an alternate institution in the area with start dates to be determined. Enquiries were made with regional Finance and HR and the employees were initially informed that those who satisfied the 40 km rule would be entitled to relocation assistance in accordance with the Relocation Directive. The Department has since revised its position and is of the view that the employees' place of duty is the Census Metropolitan Area, as such, transfers from one institution to another within the area do not qualify for relocation assistance.

Bargaining Agent Presentation

The Bargaining Agent representative explained that following the announcement of the closure of locations A and B, the grievors were offered the opportunity to choose from a list of vacancies at other institutions. The selection process, which was completed by July 5, 2012, was organized by descending order of seniority. Consequently, those with the greatest seniority had a wider range of choices and those with the least had fewer options. As a result of the ranking process, each employee's choice had an effect on the options available to employees who selected a new institution subsequently.

The representative noted that prior to making their selection, the grievors were informed by the Employer that they would be entitled to relocation assistance under the Directive and that theirs would be considered Employer requested relocations. Once the selection process was complete the Employer issued letters to each of the grievors confirming their eventual deployment to their chosen institution. The Employer also provided the local Bargaining Agent president with a list of employees affected by the closure and its determination of whether those employees would be entitled to relocation assistance based on their current home address and the address of their new institution. Each of the grievors was identified as being eligible for relocation assistance. However, in November 2012 the Employer revised its position on relocation benefits.

The representative indicated that the Employer unilaterally identified the Census Metropolitan Area as the grievors' place of duty and used this determination to deny the grievors relocation assistance. At no point prior to the completion of the selection process did the Employer inform the grievors of this definition and its potential impact on their entitlements. It was submitted that had the grievors been aware of the Employer's position they may have chosen alternate institutions.

The representative further submitted that the retroactive application of the Census Metropolitan Area runs counter to the principles of the Directive. The Directive contains no suggestion that a place of duty may be defined as a geographic area rather than a single location. The representative noted that the grievors are assigned to a single institution and do not work interchangeably at other institutions. Likewise, the employees receive specialized training unique to their assigned institution. When an employee transfers from one institution to another he must undergo training, for both operational and safety reasons, on procedures, layout and concerns that are specific to the new place of work.

The representative therefore requested that the Employer's identification of the Census Metropolitan Area as the place of duty be deemed incorrect. In the alternative, the representative asked that the Employer's decision to rescind relocation benefits retroactively and subsequent to the grievors' selection of institution be deemed inappropriate.

Departmental Presentation

The Departmental representative indicated that due to budget constraints the Employer has had to take a broader view of the definition of place of duty than an individual institution. This definition is particularly suited to the Census Metropolitan Area given the close proximity of institutions. The representative submitted that the Directive provides the Employer with the discretion to define "place of duty". The Directive identifies the place of duty as "the single permanent location determined by the employer at or from which an employee ordinarily performs the work of his or her position or reports to. " The Employer therefore views the grievors' deployments as changes in work locations within the place of duty. Given that the Directive defines relocation as "the authorized move of an employee from one place of duty to another", the grievors' deployments do not meet the definition of relocation. As such, the Directive does not apply to their circumstances.

The representative acknowledged that on July 24, 2012 the region provided a spreadsheet to the Bargaining Agent presidents regarding the grievors' eligibility for relocation assistance however this did not constitute a guarantee. It was noted that neither the letters confirming the grievors' deployments, issued in July 2012, nor the formal letters of offer, issued on November 9, 2012, contained any authorization of relocation benefits. Consequently, it is the Employer's position that relocation assistance was not revoked rather, it was never authorized in the first place.

The representative therefore requested that the grievances be denied on the basis that the grievors' deployments do not constitute relocations as defined in the Directive. However, in the event that the Executive Committee determines that the Directive applies to the grievors' circumstances, the Employer submits that each grievor's situation merits an individualized assessment. In the Employer's view, only 24 of the grievors are potentially eligible for relocation assistance as the remainder of the grievors already reside within forty kilometres of their new institution.

Executive Committee Decision

The Executive Committee noted that the Relocation Committee could not come to an agreement on the intent of the Directive in this case. The Executive Committee considered the Committee's report and agreed that the grievors were not treated within the intent of the Directive. The Committee indicated that the Census Metropolitan Area could not be used as the place of duty in regards to the Relocation Directive. However it was noted that in accordance with subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, "relocation shall only be authorized when the employee's new principal residence is at least 40 km (by the shortest usual public route) closer to the new place of work than his/her previous residence". As such the grievances are upheld.