December 8, 2014
41.4.71
Background
The grievor accepted an indeterminate appointment. The letter of offer indicated July 2010, as the start date and the location of duty was City A. At the time of the appointment, the grievor lived in City B.
The file of the grievor was opened with the relocation service provider (RSP) in April 2012. In May 2012, the house was placed on the market. In September 2012, the price was adjusted to $10 000 less. In April 2013, the price was reduced a second time by $10 000, which is below 95% of the appraised value of the house. In April 2013, after a period of 306 days on the market, the request for an extension of the relocation file was accepted for an additional six months, until October 2013.
In June 2013, the grievor accepted an assignment (from July 2013 to March 2014) in City C, which was located less than 40 km from the principal residence but more than 40 km from the work location in City A.
In October 2013, the grievor sold the house to the grievor's mother for $21 000 less than its appraised value. The parties indicated that at the time of the grievance (December 2013), the grievor was living in the house, in City B, as a tenant.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent submitted that the department refused to pay a portion of the grievor's relocation expenses, specifically the allowance in Part 8 of the Directive, based on the fact that the grievor did not move.
The Bargaining Agent indicated that since the department initially approved the grievor's relocation to City A, it acknowledged the fact that the grievor was entitled to relocation benefits. In addition, the Bargaining Agent representative pointed out that the grievor still intends to relocate to City A. He noted that the grievor sold the residence in City B to his mother, and continues to pay rent under a lease, which is a temporary situation until the assignment ends. He stressed that the grievor no longer owns the home and that the grievor still needs to relocate closer to the current workplace.
Finally, the Bargaining Agent representative noted that the intent of the Directive was to increase the grievor's mobility by helping the grievormove from one place to another. The fact that the grievor sold the residence is evidence of the actual intention to relocate to City A. Although the home was sold to a family member, that fact should not have limited the entitlements to the Directive. The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor had to find a temporary residence close to City C during the temporary assignment. As such, the fact that the home is the same one must not eliminate the right to the reimbursements prescribed in Part 8 of the Directive.
Departmental Presentation
The departmental representative confirmed authorizing the grievor's relocation to City A in April 2012. He maintained that the decision was then reversed as new information on file was received. The departmental representative maintains that the grievor never intended to relocate as the grievor continues to rent the former residence indeterminately. As the residence was physically the same, the departmental representative stated that no relocation occurred. Therefore, the Directive does not apply.
The departmental representative referred to the definition of relocation, indicating that it involves an authorized move of an employee from one workplace to another. The fact that the grievor sold the residence in order to live in it as a tenant does not constitute a relocation within the meaning of the Directive. The departmental representative cited section 1.2.4 of the Directive, which establishes that reimbursements must not improve the employee's financial situation. The departmental representative argued that the grievor did not respect commitments; never completed the relocation; and never intended to relocate to City A. He indicated that, should the department pay the relocation allowance, it would be considered a personal gain.
In addition, the departmental representative indicated that the grievor's temporary assignment had ended several months ago and that the grievor still resided at the same location. He indicated that the grievor made a personal choice by accepting a temporary assignment closer to his initial workplace and that the department should not be required to compensate the grievor for that decision.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive. It was agreed that, as the grievor did not relocate from one place of duty to another as described under the definition of relocation in the Directive and continued to reside in City B following the end of the assignment, the grievor is not entitled to assistance under Section 8 – Sale of Home. As such, the grievance is denied.