February 10, 2016
41.4.92
Background
The grievor accepted a deployment and relocated from City A to City B.
The condo at origin was first appraised to determine a selling price and was later reduced on five different occasions. The grievor also offered to pay one year of condo fees as a selling incentive and claimed that the market in City A was not favourable to sellers.
The file was registered with the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP) and the grievor had a one-year time limit to receive reimbursement for relocation expenses. As the residence at origin was not sold within the time limit, the grievor is grieving the denial of an extension for reimbursement.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the Employer's decision to deny a requested extension of the time limit on the sale of a home in accordance with Section 8.2 of the NJC Relocation Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
In accordance with Section 8.2 of the Directive, an employee can submit a request for extension where the sale of the home is delayed due to exceptional circumstances. The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the residence at origin was removed from the market for a period of time due to the resignation of the real estate agent. In addition, it can be argued that the fact that the residence was near a railway impeded the sale, especially due to a recent tragedy involving a train explosion. These circumstances should be deemed exceptional and an extension of the time for reimbursement of relocation expenses ought to be granted.
Furthermore, it was noted that the grievor lacked information from the CRSP and that responses were often not provided. For instance, it was asked if the residence could be sold to the grievor's parents and as a result of no information provided, their offer to purchase was turned down.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative submitted that, in accordance with subsection 2.13.1 of the Directive, the time limit to receive reimbursement on relocation is one year from the date of registration with the CRSP.
The Departmental representative indicated that the grievor made the personal choice to list the residence above the appraised value, knowing that it was an aggressive market and that the price was not competitive. The fact that it was a buyers market and not a sellers market does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.
Furthermore, the representative noted that the grievor's property was removed from the market as there was no real estate agent available. The Employer representative submitted that this issue is the responsibility of the grievor and that the length of time that the property was taken off the market was calculated towards the time limit, as stipulated in 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 NJC Relocation Directive. The Committee noted that the Directive aims to relocate employees in the most efficient way, at the most reasonable cost, and that the grievor's personal choices affected the sale of the property. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the grievor did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that there were exceptional circumstances impacting the sale at origin. As such, the grievance is denied.