February 10, 2016
41.4.91
Background
The grievor sold the house at origin and built a house at destination. The grievor's financial institution refused to contract a second mortgage under paragraph 9.18.c of the NJC Relocation Directive. As the grievor's financial institution is the only institution to offer a subsidized home relocation loan, which was refused, the grievor was prevented from receiving an interest subsidy.
The grievor requested that the interest on the grievor's short term bridging loan, under paragraph 9.18.b, be reimbursed in order to provide initial funds to the builder. This request was denied by the Department.
In addition, the grievor is requesting reimbursement of expenses such as electricity and insurance at both residences, under Section 8.13 Temporary Dual Residence Assistance (TDRA), as the grievor stayed at the house at origin for one month in order for the grievor's child to finish the school year.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the Employer's refusal to reimburse the relocation expenses pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that paragraph 9.18.c of the Directive does not stipulate that the subsidized home relocation loan is not applicable to new construction. As the financial institution refused to allow this loan to the grievor, a loan with another financial institution at a higher interest rate was contracted. The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the grievor should not be penalized based on the decision to build a new house at destination rather than to buy one available on the market. As there were funds available in the customized envelope, the grievor should be compensated for the higher interest rate.
In addition, the Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor should have been entitled to TDRA, in accordance with subsection 8.15.1 of the Directive. The grievor incurred additional costs in maintaining the residence at origin and the residence that was being built at destination while the grievor's child finished the school year at origin. The Bargaining Agent representative noted the exceptional circumstances surrounding the TDRA and as such, submitted that expenses should be reimbursed.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative indicated that TDRA was approved for the residence at destination for a period of one month. In this particular case, it was determined that the grievor was allowed TDRA in accordance with the circumstances referred to in subsection 8.13.1 of the Directive. However, the grievor was only reimbursed for expenses related to the vacant residence which was the home being built at destination.
As for the subsidized home relocation loan, under paragraph 9.18.c, the Departmental representative submitted that it was a decision made by the financial institution not to provide this loan and therefore, the decision cannot be overturned by the Department.
The Departmental representative concluded that there was no specific entitlement in the Directive that would allow for the additional reimbursements sought by the grievor.
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. The Committee noted that it is the employee's responsibility to secure a second mortgage loan and that the application of paragraph 9.18.c is subject to the approval of the financial institution. The Committee further determined that TDRA was paid in accordance with the Directive. As such, the grievance is denied.