NJC Relocation Directive – Eligibility

Background

The grievor's substantive position was relocated to another location, which was 3.9 kms away from the initial work location. The new location is deemed closer to the grievor's principal residence and therefore, the Employer denied the application of the Relocation Directive.

Grievance

The grievor is grieving the Employer's denial to pay for relocation expenses and submits that this action is in violation of the Directive and any other Section of the Collective Agreement that may apply.

Bargaining Agent Presentation

It is the Bargaining Agent representative's position that the Department does not have discretion to determine whether or not to allow the grievor's relocation. In accordance with subsection 1.2.3, the Relocation Directive is not a permissive guideline and departmental discretion shall be confined to those provisions where it is specifically authorized.

In addition, subsection 1.4.5 of the Directive describes the circumstances when relocations are normally authorized and does not provide any discretion to the Employer. It is the contention of the representative that in denying the grievor's relocation request, the Employer has granted itself discretionary authority beyond the Directive. As such, the Department has violated subsection 2.1.1 of the Directive, which stipulated that the Employer has the responsibility to authorize relocation and to ensure that all relocation arrangements are consistent with the provisions of the Directive.

Although the Employer considered the commuting pattern and the distance between both workplaces in its decision to not allow the relocation, the Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the Directive does not address these factors in the determination of the grievor's eligibility but rather in the determination of the employee's entitlements once eligible to relocate.

Departmental Presentation

The Departmental representative explained that in accordance with subsection 1.2.4 of the Directive, relocation expenses must be directly attributable to the relocation, and must be reasonable and justifiable. The representative noted that offering relocation in this situation would be considered unreasonable, as the distance between both work locations is less than 5 km and did not impact the grievor's regular commuting pattern, as in fact, it reduced the travelling distance. Therefore, the representative indicated that the Department does not consider this to be a justifiable and reasonable expense that falls within the intent of the Directive and is of the opinion that this would not be a reasonable cost at the public's expense.

The Departmental representative also indicated that not only does the Employer have the responsibility to authorize the relocation but to ensure that it is consistent with the intent of the Directive which means that the Employer also has the right to deny relocation assistance when it is not deemed to be within the intent of the Directive.

The representative noted that the ‘40 km rule' does not trigger an automatic entitlement to relocation expenses as it is a guideline for Departments with respect to when it may be reasonable to offer relocation benefits thus requiring discretion and judgment from the Employer.

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 Departments have discretion to determine whether or not relocation should be authorized within the parameters of the Directive. It noted that justifiable and reasonable expenses should only be considered once relocation has been authorized. As such, the grievance is denied.