May 7, 2015
25.4.162
Background
The grievor is an employee from Department A who is grieving the Employer's decision to deny authorization for a Vacation Travel Allowance (VTA) for the employee's common-law partner.
The grievor was posted to City A, Country X in August 2009. While posted in City A, the grievor began a relationship with a now common-law partner. The partner began residing with the grievor on June 1, 2011. On June 1, 2012, the grievor's partner officially met the definition of Common-Law Partner and was added to the grievor's Posting Confirmation Form (PCF) as a dependant.
On June 11, 2012 the grievor requested VTA for both the grievor and common-law partner. The VTA for the common-law partner was refused as the grievor was scheduled to leave the post in August 2012. The Employer is of the opinion that a VTA is granted to an employee and dependants based on the expectation that the individuals in question will remain at the post for a minimum of one year subsequent to their start dates as listed on the PCF. As the common-law partner was only listed on the PCF effective June 1, 2012 and would be leaving the post with the grievor in August 2012, it was determined by the Department that the common-law partner would not be entitled to the VTA as the length of time residing at the post as a dependant was not long enough to be eligible for a VTA. The grievor is grieving this decision.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that FSD 50 is an individual entitlement and is applicable to any dependant normally residing with the employee at the post with no specified time frame to be eligible for an FSD 50. The definition of "accompanied by one dependant" used by the Department is not the FSD 2 definition of a "dependant". The Bargaining Agent representative is of the opinion that the term "accompanied by one dependant" does not appear in FSD 50 and is not applicable to FSD 50.
The Bargaining Agent representative further noted that travel entitlements under FSD 50 may be taken at any time during a posting and that the grievor did meet the condition of anticipating changes in family size when applying for a VTA in accordance with both FSD 50 and FSD 70 as the grievor did not apply for a VTA until the common-law partner met the definition of "dependant" under FSD 2.
As such, the Bargaining Agent representative maintains that the grievor was not treated within the intent of FSD 50 as the grievor's common-law partner met all of the conditions under FSD 50 and FSD 70 in order to qualify for a VTA.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative maintained that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive.
The Department does not dispute the fact that the grievor's partner became a common-law partner effective June 1, 2012. However, the Department is of the opinion that since the grievor left the posting in August 2012, the partner was not a dependant for the minimum required eight (8) months of a twelve (12) month period, in accordance with the definition of FSD 2 "accompanied by one dependant". As the grievor's common-law partner did not have the status of dependant for an 8-month period, the common-law partner is not entitled to VTA in accordance with FSD 50.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of FSD 50. The grievor's common-law partner was only considered a dependant for a two month period prior to the grievor leaving the post. The Committee agreed that two months in a three year posting cannot be considered "normally residing with the employee" in accordance with FSD 50. As such, the grievance is denied.