July 29, 2015
41.4.82
Background
The grievor's work location at origin was in City A. The grievor was affected by a workforce adjustment and subsequently transferred to City B.
The grievor sold the house at origin in March 2013. The house at destination was bought in January 2013. The grievor has a subsidized daycare for toddlers at origin and was not able to secure one at destination before March 2013. Therefore, the grievor incurred interest on the short term personal loan from January to April 2013 and a reimbursement under section 9.18(a) is requested. It is to be noted that the grievor used the totality of the Customized and Personalized Funds for Home Sale Assistance (HSA) and therefore, did not have sufficient funds to cover the interest of the loan.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the residence at origin was sold after the residence at destination was bought and therefore, a bridge loan from the bank was required in order to support the overlap of both mortgages. The representative maintained that a bridge loan is considered a mortgage and, as such, the grievor should not be penalized by the terminology used by the financial institution as these terms vary from one institution to another.
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the grievor was not advised that only a portion of the relocation expenses would be reimbursed. The Employer failed to provide the proper support in order for the grievor to make appropriate decisions during the process, which caused a number of prejudices.
The representative further referred to Hicks v. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada Decision, which stipulated that the Employer is to reimburse the additional cost incurred during the relocation and that the employee should not be prejudiced. This is also articulated under Section 1.2 of the Directive, which specified that in order for relocation expenses to be reimbursed, they must be attributable to the relocation, be reasonable and justifiable.
As such, the bridge loan and the interest incurred by the grievor should be reimbursed under the Directive – Section 9.18(a).
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that, based on the exceptional circumstances that prevented the grievor from occupying the residence at destination, additional Temporary Dual Residence Allowance was granted. As such, the Employer reimbursed the interest incurred on the mortgage for the period of non-occupancy of the residence at destination.
It is the position of the Employer that the interest on the bridge loan should be reimbursed from the Customized or Personalized Funds and falls under Section 9.18(b). As the grievor chose to be reimbursed for HSA, the funds were exhausted and consequently, the grievor took a financial loss.
Furthermore, the representative maintained that the bridge loan and its interest cannot be reimbursed under Section 9.18(a) as it refers to a short term personal loan which is different than a bridge loan. In the event that the grievor would have had sufficient funds in the Customized or Personalized envelopes, the interest of the bridge loan could have been covered under Section 9.18(b).
As those funds were emptied, it is the Employer's position that the bridge loan and the interest incurred by the grievor should not be reimbursed.
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 such, the grievance is denied.