July 29, 2015
41.4.80
Background
The grievor is an employee who worked in City A. In June 2010, an indeterminate appointment in City B was accepted. The letter of offer stated that the employee may be entitled to relocation assistance in accordance with the NJC Relocation Directive (Directive). However, the grievor has never relocated.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the grievance was rejected on the basis of two arguments.
The first is timeliness as it took the grievor a year following the appointment to City B to contact the relocation coordinator and inquire about the eligibility for relocation expenses. The representative explained that the grievor relied on the Senior Director of the establishment as well as Labour Relations, who advised that the grievor had one year to relocate following the appointment. As such, the grievor took the necessary time to assess the market and visit properties but did not find any suitable place. When the grievor contacted the relocation coordinator 11 months later, the grievor was advised that no entitlement to relocation expenses was possible as the relocation did not take place upon appointment.
The second argument for denying the grievance concerns the 40 km rule of the Directive. Relocation is authorized when an employee's new principal residence is at least 40 km closer to the new place of work, by the shortest usual public route, than the previous residence. The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the direction provided by Google Maps includes school zones, reduced speed limits, multiple stop signs, city bus route, etc. which takes longer than the highway. Based on Google Maps, the distance between the grievor's residence and the place of duty is 38.2 km. The representative explained that this distance may vary depending on the websites used. MapQuest and Yahoo Maps estimate the distance of being more than 40 km.
Furthermore, the representative argued that the Directive is silent about the distance being less than 40 km; it only specifies that the expenses are taxable which suggest that the grievor may still be eligible to some of the expenses.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental Representative explained that the letter of offer stated that the grievor may be entitled to relocation assistance in accordance with the Directive and that the grievor should contact the Finance Division prior to making any arrangement. The representative later clarified that it is the employee's responsibility to contact the relocation coordinator in a timely fashion to start the process. The grievor inquired about the relocation approximately 11 months after the appointment and indicated to the coordinator that relocation was not the principal concern as the grievor was uncertain that a suitable residence would be found before the time limits expired. The grievor was subsequently informed that the relocation could not be authorized as the request was made almost a year after the letter of offer was received.
The representative also indicated that the 40 km rule is applicable when the employee's new principal residence is located 40 km (by the shortest usual public route) closer to the new place of work than the previous residence. The calculation methods vary from different online tools and the distance between the principal residence and the new workplace ranges from 38 to 44 km. It is the Department's position that the distance between the old residence and the new workplace cannot be less than 40 km.
Furthermore, the grievor did not physically move nor was there any indication of a desire to move closer to the place of duty. As the grievor did not relocate, there are no provisions under the Directive that apply to the situation and therefore, relocation assistance cannot be provided.
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 NJC Relocation Directive as the grievor did not relocate and did not incur any relocation expenses. The Committee also noted that the one year time frame begins once the service provider has opened a file and not from the date of the letter of offer. As such, the grievance is denied.