May 25, 2016
41.4.89
Background
The grievor accepted a deployment offer and relocated from Province A to Province B.
The grievor completed the sale of the residence at origin, for which the offer accepted was below the threshold of 95% of the appraised value. The grievor was denied Home Sale Assistance (HSA) as per Section 8.3 of the Directive.
The grievor was reimbursed 50% of both the fees for the Real Estate Commission (REC) and the Mortgage-Breaking Penalties since the grievor owned 50% of the property at origin.
Furthermore, the Department denied the grievor's request to be reimbursed certain living expenses associated with the dependant who remained at origin to conclude an employment contract.
Consequently, only a portion of the grievor's relocation expenses were paid by the Department.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the denial of relocation expenses including, but not limited to, a percentage of the sale cost of the home, certain moving expenses and the living costs associated with a dependant. In addition, the Directive and the agreement with the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP) were not explained to the grievor upon request.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor did not receive proper support from either the CRSP or the Department. The grievor sent multiple emails with questions, which remained unanswered. In accordance with subsection 1.2.2 of the Directive, each participant is provided with a personalized approach that meets their particular needs, including professional assistance at every step of the relocation in order to maximize the available benefits, which was not the grievor's situation.
Furthermore, the Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor was provided with misleading information during the briefing session with the CRSP as the grievor was advised that there would be an entitlement to a full reimbursement of the real estate commission as well as the notary fees, for which the grievor obtained a reimbursement of only 50%. The representative submitted that the grievor interpreted the Directive to the best of the grievor's knowledge and had limited information and resources. It was also noted that the grievor should not be held accountable for the misapplication of the Directive by the Employer which had a financial impact.
Departmental Presentation
It is the position of the Department that in order to be reimbursed for the 10% Home Sale Assistance, the grievor must first obtain the approval of the Departmental National Coordinator which was requested after the sale of the house. The Departmental representative indicated that it is employee's responsibility to read the Directive, consult with the CRSP and obtain proper authorizations prior to engaging in any relocation-related activities in accordance with subsections 2.2.2.1, 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.2.3 of the Directive.
As for the real estate commission fees and the mortgage breaking penalties, the representative noted that in accordance with Sections 8.6 and 8.11 of the Directive, only the portion of expenses directly proportional to the employee's legal share of the property shall be reimbursed. As the principal residence at origin was co-owned by the grievor's spouse and ex-partner, the grievor was only entitled to be reimbursed for 50% of the expenses.
The Departmental representative also clarified that the grievor's spouse is not considered as a dependant and the fact that the spouse had to stay at origin to complete a work related contract does not constitute a justifiable reason under subsection 8.13.3. 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 noted that the grievor received proper reimbursement of relocation expenses in accordance with the Directive. As such, the grievance is denied.