February 10, 2016
41.4.93
Background
The position of the grievor was identified for a Workforce Adjustment as a result of discontinuance of function and as such, the grievor became an affected employee. The grievor initially worked in City A and deployed to City B.
The grievor's relocation was registered with the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP), thus beginning the relocation period. The residence at origin was not listed immediately after registration as the grievor wanted to renovate, in order to obtain a better selling price.
The residence at origin was listed on the market, 8 months after the date of the file's registration, and it did not sell within the time limit (1 year) prescribed in the NJC Relocation Directive. A request for extension was made for exceptional circumstances under Section 2.13 of the Directive based on the fact that there was a depressed housing market that severely hampered the sale of the residence. The grievor's request was denied by the Employer. Two months later, a second request for extension was made by the grievor's manager, on behalf of the grievor, stating that medical concerns, in addition to the depressed housing market, may constitute as extenuating circumstances for an extension. This request was sent to the Program Authority at Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) and denied. It is to be noted that should the extension have been granted, the grievor would have been eligible to claim reimbursement of additional relocation expenses.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the severe financial prejudice resulting from a lack of clear guidance and information and the Employer's failure under subsection 2.2.1.8 of the Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor only had a one hour consultation meeting with the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP) and was not provided all of the necessary information related to the importance of listing the house quickly on the market and how to minimize the cost at origin.
As the grievor did not know that the house at origin had to be marketed within a short period of time, it was decided that renovations needed to be done. As the grievor was already at destination, had two residences to maintain and performed renovations at origin, the Bargaining Agent representative noted that it was a very difficult time for the grievor.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor submitted a request of extension to the Departmental National Coordinator, which was denied without proper verification. As such, the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive and as the property at origin is no longer on the market and the request of extension is moot, it is requested that financial compensation be granted.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative noted that the grievor was informed during the consultation meeting with the CRSP that it would be disallowed to receive Temporary Dual Relocation Assistance until the residence at origin was listed. The grievor made an informed decision when it was decided to undergo renovations and chose to not market the property at the beginning of the relocation process. The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor was advised on multiple occasions of the need to list the residence and that it was only 8 months after the file was opened with the CRSP, that the property was placed on the market thus allowing 4 months to sell it.
The Departmental representative confirmed that a request of extension was denied by the Departmental National Coordinator. The representative submitted that an extension request is granted based on exceptional circumstances and according to the Department, renovations do not meet this definition. As such, it is the Employer's position that the grievor's relocation was treated within the intent of 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 to the extent that the grievor's relocation expenses were paid. The Committee noted that the Departmental National Coordinator failed in its responsibility to forward the grievor's business case in a timely manner and had no authority to deny the extension. It is to be noted that Departments have no discretion in regards to the application of Section 8.2 of the Directive and that all business cases shall be submitted to Treasury Board Secretariat for a request of extension. As such, the grievance is denied.