April 6, 2016
41.4.97
Background
The grievor occupied a position in City A and was deployed to a position in City B. While the grievor was paid the full relocation expenses under the NJC Relocation Directive, the Employer subsequently submitted that it was an employee-requested relocation as it was accepted based on compassionate grounds.
Therefore, the Department contends that the grievor should have been paid the maximum employee-requested relocation allowable under the Directive.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the Employer's decision to deny relocation expenses in accordance with the Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor's letters of offer indicated that full relocation benefits would be granted. The grievor followed the directions provided in the letters of offer as well as those given by the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP). Upon completion of the relocation process, the Employer informed the grievor that a ‘clerical error' occurred in the relocation file and withdrew its decision to pay the full relocation expenses. It is the Bargaining Agent representative's position that the grievor proceeded with the relocation in good faith and should not be held accountable for the Employer's error.
In addition, the Employer failed to issue a written certification that, had the vacant position not been filled as a result of an employee-requested transfer, it would have been filled through normal staffing procedures without relocation expenses being incurred. As such, the Employer should fulfil its obligation under the Directive and pay the grievor the full relocation expenses.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative indicated that although the grievor applied on an anticipatory advertised selection process, the deployment was initiated as a result of a personal request to relocate closer to the family and as such, falls outside of the staffing process. The Employer was sympathetic to the grievor's situation and proceeded out of compassion in order to accommodate a personal situation. It is the position of the Departmental representative that while the letters of offer did not explicitly state that it was an employee-requested relocation, there were numerous conversations and meetings in which the grievor was advised of the maximum for the relocation.
The representative indicated that the grievor misrepresented the circumstances of the deployment to the relocation unit, which lead them to process the deployment as a full relocation. Instead of being honest and forthright with the relocation unit when they erroneously processed the relocation as Employer-requested, the grievor remained silent, benefitting from the error.
In addition, the representative submitted that although certification is required for all employee-requested transfers, such certification was not requested from management as the relocation unit mistakenly processed the relocation as an Employer-requested transfer for which the certification is not required. It was further indicated that since this issue has come to light, the Department has certified that, had the position not been filled as a result of this employee-requested transfer, they would not have proceeded with filling the position at all.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the NJC Relocation Directive. The Committee noted that notwithstanding the fact that it was an employee-requested relocation, the Department failed to provide written certification, at the time, that, had the vacant position not been filled as a result of an employee-requested transfer, it would have been filled through normal staffing procedures without relocation expenses being incurred. It was also noted that the Department authorized an Employer-requested relocation with the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP) and that the CRSP advised the employee and administered the relocation as an Employer-requested relocation until the relocation was essentially completed. Notwithstanding anything the employee did or did not tell the relocation unit, the Department had a responsibility to certify the position in accordance with paragraph 12.1.1.2 (a) before authorizing the relocation and then to authorize the correct type of relocation and it did neither. As such, the grievance is upheld.