April 6, 2016
41.4.103
Background
The grievor accepted a deployment and relocated from City A to City B two months later. The grievor's home at origin did not close until five month after the relocation.
The Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP) advised the grievor, based on information received from the grievor's financial institution that the mortgage could port with the caveat that it would need to be returned to the lender within 90 days of selling the property. The grievor did not port the mortgage and as such, the penalty associated with the cost of breaking this mortgage had to be paid.
The penalty could have been reimbursed under the Personal Fund of the Directive; however, the grievor did not have sufficient funds to cover the reimbursement of such mortgage – breaking penalties.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the Employer's denial to reimburse the mortgage breaking penalties from the Core Fund under the Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the Employer did not want to postpone the start date of the grievor which impeded the ability to sell at origin before purchasing at destination thus rendering the mortgage unportable. The representative noted that the sale date at origin and the purchase date at destination were outside of the Broker's parameters to allow the portability of the mortgage. As such, the mortgage's portability was not an option for the grievor as it is stipulated in Section 8.11 of the Directive.
The representative indicated that the Employer's expectations toward the grievor's situation stating that the grievor ought to have moved alone and taken an apartment that cannot accommodate dogs, demonstrated a lack of sensitivity and support in light of the grievor's needs.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the Employer did not treat the grievor within the intent of the Directive when it determined that a person who is unable to purchase a home or sell a home within the identified limits of his financial institution's portability condition has made a personal decision not to port their mortgage when portability was an option.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative argued that the grievor knew when he purchased at destination that the mortgage was portable under the condition that any mortgage penalty would be refunded if he returned to the same lender within 90 days and blended the rate with the new mortgage. The representative indicated that the grievor had a variety of options available to him which would have avoided incurring any mortgage breaking penalties, such as: advise management of the portability issue and have his start date delayed; request Temporary Dual Residence Assistance (TDRA) in a furnished apartment that accepted dogs, or leave the spouse at origin to care for the dogs until the home sold while the grievor rented in the new location.
The Employer representative submitted that at the time of the relocation, the grievor knew that the mortgage was portable and of the conditions attached to it by the mortgage lender. The representative suggested that the grievor chose to ignore the conditions of the mortgage at origin and requested to be reimbursed the mortgage breaking penalties as a result of a personal decision.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded that, based on the available information, the grievor was treated within the intent of the NJC Relocation Directive. The Committee indicated that the grievor made an informed decision without knowing whether or not the residence at origin within 90 days would be sold, a condition of portability by the broker. As such, the grievance is denied.