February 26, 2014
25.4.159
Background
The employee has been acting in a position in Country A since September 14, 2010. In September 2011, the employee was joined by the partner in Country A. The Staff Quarters (SQ) (an apartment) has 6 rooms (kitchen, living room, dining room and 3 bedrooms). The employee is of the opinion that based on the NJC Accommodation Space Targets/Guidelines, the current salary and the number of occupants in the household, the entitlements should be for a 8 room SQ including 3 or 4 bedrooms.
In February 2012 the employee completed an Application for Accommodation Deficiency Adjustment (ADA) which was approved by the Mission Housing Committee and Head of Mission (HOM). In June 2012, the employee's ADA request was reviewed by Headquarters. On November 6, 2012 the Committee on Accommodation Deficiency (COAD) decided that an ADA could not be approved for the grievor as the SQ met the minimum requirements in accordance with the NJC Accommodation Space Targets/Guidelines.
The employee is grieving the Department's decision.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor was not treated within the intent of FSD 25 as: the original ADA request was approved by the Mission Housing Committee and HOM there was no "dispute" between the grievor and the HOM as such, the COAD should not have been involved in the process; the COAD does not appear to be using "Ottawa-Gatineau" as a comparator but rather "other European cities", and the Department issued a new guideline as of April 1, 2012 and is trying to retroactively apply the guideline to pre-existing situations. Therefore, in light of the circumstances, the Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive, and as such requested that the grievance be granted.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative noted that it is the Department's position that the grievor was treated within the intent of FSD 25. In accordance with the "Accommodation Space Target/Guideline (Appendix C of FSD 25), an employee with the grievor's acting salary and family configuration is entitled to 8 (3-4) (meaning 8 rooms with 3 or 4 bedrooms). The Department noted that although the target/guidelines indicate that eight (8) rooms should be provided, the impact on the livability of the SQ not having eight distinct rooms is considered to be low. With the impact to be deemed low, the number of points that the grievor would receive, in addition for the other areas that are covered by an ADA is not enough for it to apply (i.e. less than 10 points).
Furthermore, the Department noted that from a square metre perspective, the gross area of the SQ occupied by the grievor is well within the recommended size guidelines. Finally, it was submitted that Appendix C outlines space targets/guidelines and these targets/guidelines are not entitlements. As such, the Department recommends that the Committee deny the grievance as well as the corrective action requested.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee which concluded that the grievor had not been treated within the intent of FSD 25 – Appendix C and E. The Committee agreed that in accordance with Appendix C – Accommodation Space Targets/Guidelines, the grievor was under-housed from the date the grievor's partner arrived at post in September 2011. However, the Committee commented that under-housing does not automatically qualify for an ADA as impact on liveableness must be evaluated (low, moderate or high degree). Furthermore, the Committee noted that the original ADA request was assessed incorrectly as it appears to be based on a family configuration of three (3) as opposed to two (2). As such, the Committee is requesting that the Head of Mission review the ADA request, on the notion that the grievor was under-housed in accordance with the Directive, that the grievor's family configuration be two (2), and that the rating system at the time that the application was submitted be used to assess whether or not the grievor qualifies for an ADA. As such, the grievance is upheld to the extent that the ADA request be reviewed based on the criteria established above.