July 29, 2015
41.4.72
Background
The grievor is an employee of Department A and was employed in the City A office. The grievor's position was impacted during the deficit reduction action plan exercise and the grievor accepted a position in City B.
The grievor arrived in City B in January 2013 and started working three days later. The grievor sold the residence in City A in February 2013 and took possession of a house in City B in March 2013. The grievor was in receipt of a Temporary Dual Residence Allowance (TDRA) from January to February 2013 and was reimbursed for 30 days of Interim Accommodation, Meals and Miscellaneous Relocation Allowances (IAM&MA) from February to March 2013.
The grievor had the household goods and effects (HG&E) delivered in March 2013. While unpacking and cleaning the residence, the grievor stayed in hotel accommodations for two nights, for which reimbursement was denied.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
It is the Bargaining Agent's position that the short term notice under sections 5.1 and 5.6 of the Directive should have applied to the grievor thus allowing up to 60 days of IAM&MA to get settled at destination.
The grievor was initially expected to relocate within 11 days after accepting the position which constitutes, in the view of the Bargaining Agent representative, a short term notice. The Employer denied the request to apply short term notice based on the argument that this provision is generally reserved for renters, which is not mentioned in the Directive.
The representative further noted that the TDRA was based on the date that the employee accepted the position instead of the physical relocation at destination date.
It was also submitted that the timeliness set out in the Directive for the approval of IAM&MA should not be based on the date of the sale of the grievor's former residence (January 2013) but rather be based on the date on which the real estate transaction was legally completed (February 2013). Similarly with the purchase of the residence at destination, the calculation should be based on the date on which the purchase of the residence was legally completed (March 2013 – as per the Bargaining Agent Representative).
As such, the Bargaining Agent representative is arguing that by recalculating the timelines for the grievor's IAM&MA entitlements, it should be sufficient to cover the accommodation needs including the possession date of the new residence, the unloading, packing and the clean-up.
Finally, the representative submitted that the grievor's situation qualifies under the short term notice provisions of the Directive and that, had those provisions been granted, the relocation would have been completed within the 60-day period of time.
Departmental Presentation
The Employer representative explained that the grievor was informed via email by the Relocation Coordinator that only 30 days can be approved for IAM&MA under the Core Fund of the Directive. The grievor submitted a business case to Treasury Board for reimbursement of IAM&MA over 30 days, which was denied. Furthermore, the representative noted that had the grievor not decided to take the transfer allowance from Personalized Fund in cash, there would have been sufficient funds to cover the requested IAM&MA at destination.
It is the position of the Employer that section 5.6 of the Directive is normally applicable in two circumstances, for individuals who rent at origin, and for those who are unable to list their home for sale and therefore not entitled to TDRA. Neither of those situations applied to the grievor.
The representative further noted that the grievor indicated that the initial closing date for the purchase at destination was set for late April or early May, which would have been outside of the 60-day period of the closing date of the former residence at origin. Therefore, the Departmental representative indicated that the grievor made an informed decision when choosing to purchase the residence at destination, and would have known that it would fall outside of the time limits for the IAM&MA.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee reviewed the report of the Relocation Committee and noted the impasse. The Executive Committee concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive. When the grievor transitioned to TDRA, the grievor no longer qualified for the provisions of Short Notice IAM&MA. When the employee's TDRA ended, the maximum allowable provisions for IAM&MA was granted under the Directive (30 days). As such, the grievance is denied.