NJC Relocation Directive – Shipment of Household Goods and Effects (HG&E)

Background

The grievor occupied a position in City A and was relocated to City B as a result of a personal request.

The grievor received an advance payment to cover various relocation expenses. However, a portion of the amount was recovered by the Employer as the grievor did not make arrangements with the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP) to move the household goods and effects (HG&E).

Grievance

The grievor is grieving the Employer's denial to fully reimburse expenses for the shipment of Household Goods and Effects (HG&E).

Bargaining Agent Presentation

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor had to relocate on short-notice and had one month to organize the move. It is the position of the representative that the grievor received misleading information from the CRSP as it was suggested by the CRSP to hire a local company to move the HG&E in order to be at destination in a more timely fashion.

The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the information session with the CRSP was brief and that contradictory information in nature was given to the grievor, thus leading to proceeding without the Central Removal Services (CRS). The representative submitted that the grievor absorbed the difference in cost for the relocation and that the grievor should not be held accountable for receiving incorrect information.

Departmental Presentation

The Departmental representative argued that the grievor received accurate information from the Department and the CRSP on numerous occasions and that ultimately, the grievor was advised to take the decision whether to contract with a private company or to retain the services of the CRS.

Although the private company hired by the grievor is less expensive than the CRS, the grievor made the personal decision not to retain the service provided by the Employer and thus, not be covered under the Directive. In addition, the Employer agreed to pay the relocation expenses that are covered by the Directive up to the maximum.

As such, it is the Employer's representative's position that the grievor 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. The Committee further noted that the employee was provided with the correct information and as such, the decision to not use the Central Removal Services was a personal choice. As such, the grievance is denied.