February 26, 2014
41.4.59
Background
The employee was scheduled to relocate to City A and as part of the relocation process, a 6-day house hunting trip (HHT) beginning May 8, 2012, was undertaken upon arrival in City. It was discovered that the most suitable properties had offers pending. The employee nevertheless viewed 27 properties in various parts of the region without success. The employee returned home and later initiated a second HHT where another 24 properties were seen. Reimbursement of expenses associated with the second HHT was drawn from the Personalized Fund. There were ultimately four HHTs before completing the purchase of a home however the employee is only disputing the reimbursement of funds related to the second HHT.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor's second HHT was approved in advance and at the time of approval no mention was made to the grievor that reimbursement would be issued from the Personalized Fund. The representative submitted that the Employer ought to have reimbursed the costs associated with the grievor's second HHT from the Customized Fund as the expenses incurred were clearly reasonable and justifiable and were directly attributable to the relocation.
Furthermore, section 3.2.2.1(c) of the Relocation Directive (the Directive) stipulates that:
All expenses considered as part of an enhancement to the move shall be charged against the Customized Fund first unless specifically disallowed in this Directive, and any expenses in excess of the Customized Fund shall then be paid from the Personalized Fund.
The representative indicated that given that sufficient funds remained, the reimbursement should have been drawn from the Customized Fund. The decision to issue the reimbursement from the Personalized Fund resulted in it being subject to taxation. Consequently, the grievor was forced to incur unreasonable expenses related to the reimbursement.
The representative also noted that section 3.2.3.1 states that the employee will have the final decision on how the Personalized Fund is to be expended. It was submitted that the Employer's decision deprived the grievor of the right to determine how the Fund should be utilized.
The Bargaining Agent representative therefore requested that the grievance be upheld.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that the intent of the Directive is to provide employees with one HHT. Section 4.18 allows for more than one HHT however this section outlines that additional expenses related the HHT are to be applied against the employee's Personalized Fund, as was the case in the present grievance. Likewise, section 3.2.3.2 identifies additional HHT expenses/days as an entitlement available to employees under the Personalized Fund.
The representative also indicated that section 3.2.2.1 stipulates that the Customized Fund allows an employee to claim other elements of a move that are not covered under the Core Fund. As the HHT is an element covered by the Core Fund the grievor is precluded from receiving a reimbursement from the Customized Fund.
It was noted that the grievor visited a total of 51 properties over the course of the first two HHTs. The representative suggested that the difficulty in securing a new residence was not a result of a shortage of available listings but due to the grievor's restrictive personal preferences. As there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant a second HHT, the Department is of the view that the reimbursement rightly flowed from the Personalized Fund.
The representative referenced section 1.2.4 of the Directive which states that relocation expenses must not upgrade the financial position of the employee. It was submitted that the grievor's request that the funds in question be deposited into an RRSP, a tax shelter, leads one to believe that financial gain is being sought.
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 not been treated within the intent of the Directive. It was agreed that the reimbursement of expenses related to the grievor's second HHT should have been made from the Customized Fund. The Committee noted that section 3.2.2.1(c) of the Directive identifies how the Customized Fund should be utilized and that the reimbursement in question was not in excess of the Fund. As such, the grievance is upheld.