May 7, 2015
41.4.70
Background
The grievor is an employee working for Department A. In October 2010, the position, in Province X, was affected by a Work Force Adjustment and the employee was offered a position in Province Y. The grievor started at the new location and relocation was initiated under the Relocation Directive. The grievor travelled from City A, Province X to City B, Province Y to maintain a semblance of normal life and the relocation was finalized in May 2011.
When the grievance was filed (May 2012), the grievor's relocation file was not completed by Brookfield Global Relocation Service and as a result, additional final amounts were released in totality to the grievor in August 2013. Following this reimbursement, the grievor is of the opinion that an amount is still outstanding.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The grievor's home at origin was appraised for less than expected and as such, the grievor decided to not sell the residence. The Bargaining Agent explained that the grievor subsequently experienced difficulties in being reimbursed the relocation expenses and there were delays in the payments of such expenses and entitlements. Therefore, the grievor requested an advance payment in order to pay a line of credit at the bank and avoid interest, which was denied by the Department.
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that there was confusion between the regions with regards to the grievor's eligibility for relocation expenses thus increasing the financial impact. The representative noted that as the final claim was not signed by the grievor, Brookfield did not release the remaining relocation entitlements. Section 3.2.3.1 of the Directive stipulates that any remaining money should be paid out upon completion of the move or at the end of 12 months, which was the case for the grievor. The Bargaining Agent argued that the Department imposed requirements that are not in the Directive by compelling the grievor to sign the final expense claim in order to be paid out.
Furthermore, the Bargaining Agent indicated that the grievor made every effort to mitigate the cost of the relocation by eventually renting an apartment and by using the least expensive means of transportation to travel at origin.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative maintained that the grievor was reimbursed relocation expenses in accordance with the Directive. When electing not to sell the residence at origin, the grievor was advised that the unused funding envelope of the Customized Fund would be forfeited. The representative explained that the remaining funds are not payable to the employee or to be used to supplement expenses, as per section 3.2.2.1 of the Directive.
Furthermore, the grievor claimed ineligible reimbursement for return trips at origin while not qualifying for Temporary Dual Residency Allocation (TDRA). The TDRA is provided when employees proceed to sell their residences at origin, which was not the case of the grievor.
As for the payment for transportation of household goods below the established threshold, the representative indicated that the grievor did not expedite the entire shipment at destination and as such, is not entitled to the 80% savings.
As for the reimbursement of parking, the Departmental representative noted that the grievor was reimbursed for all submitted eligible parking receipts. Therefore, it is the Department's position that the grievor received full entitlements in accordance with the Directive.
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 and was not entitled to the reimbursements requested. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the grievor's Interim Accommodations were intermittent and that section 5.6 of the Directive was, in general, for a continuous period. As such, the grievance is denied.