December 15, 2016
41.4.104
Background
On November 15, 2011, the grievor accepted a deployment from City A to City B. The grievor and spouse initially rented temporary accommodation at destination given that their home remained unsold at origin and the Household Goods and Effects (HG&E) had yet to be shipped. The grievor was provided with Temporary Dual Residence Allowance (TDRA).
The grievor returned to City A, from February 14 to February 18, 2012, to pack and load their HG&E while the grievor’s spouse remained at destination. The Employer refused to pay TDRA for that period of time given that the employee transitioned to the Interim Accommodation, Meals and Miscellaneous Relocation Allowance (IAM&MA) for packing, loading and cleaning. It is the Employer’s position that the TDRA status ceases when the HG&E are packed and that the grievor is considered to be on IAM&MA until the HG&E are delivered and unpacked at destination.
Furthermore, the Employer noted that it was a personal choice for the grievor’s spouse to accompany the grievor to destination prior to pack and load and hence, the Employer is not responsible for the cost associated with this personal decision.
The grievor is claiming the reimbursement of the short term accommodation from February 14 to February 18, 2012 and submits that in addition, the mortgage and utilities for their house at origin were not paid by the Employer and should be reimbursed as well.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the reimbursement of short-term accommodation in the amount of $520 in accordance with Paragraph 1.2.5.1 of the Directive for the period of February 14 to February 18, 2012.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor’ spouse has medical limitations where being left alone is precluded and as such, the grievor could not have, in good conscience, left the spouse alone at origin until the residence was sold, while working at destination. The representative maintained that the Employer is well aware of the medical limitations of the grievor’s spouse as the spouse is also an employee of the Department and medical rational supporting the spouse travelling to destination with the grievor was provided to the Departmental National Coordinator. The representative noted that the grievor provided more information than required on the medical condition of the grievor’s spouse and that the Department never questioned the information provided, it simply did not want to accommodate the grievor.
The representative noted that although an employee’s dependents normally stay at origin for packing and loading HG&E, there are special circumstances surrounding the grievor’s situation. The Bargaining Agent representative stated that applying the Directive without taking into account the accommodation needs of the grievor’s spouse would cause undue hardship to the family. The representative referred the Committee to the principles of flexibility and trust in the Directive and explained that the employee should be provided with an environment where management decisions respect duty to accommodate as the Directive provides discretion and latitude for employees and managers to act in a fair and reasonable manner. The representative noted that the grievor had provided the Department with a rational for these expenses but that this rationale had not been forwarded to the Program Authority at the Treasury Board.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that the grievor’s spouse remained in a temporary accommodation at destination during the time that the grievor returned to origin to pack and load his HG&E. It is the Department’s position that the cost relating to his TDRA arose out of a personal choice to initially travel with the spouse to destination and hence, is considered to be ineligible expenses under the Directive. The representative indicated that the grievor was informed that any expenses resulting from personal decision would not be reimbursed, such as the cost of four hotel nights at destination for the grievor’s spouse.
The representative also noted that although the grievor claimed undue hardship, supporting evidence as to the nature of the hardship that would have been incurred had the grievor’s spouse remained at origin was not submitted. The grievor was informed that the TDRA would cease and that an interim status would apply until the HG&E were delivered and unpacked at destination. The representative stated that there was no requirement to submit the employee’s rationale to the Program Authority.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded that the Departmental National Coordinator failed in its responsibility to forward the grievor’s business case to the Program Authority for review. Notwithstanding this failure, the Committee concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive since TDRA ceases when an employee is in receipt of IAM&MA. When returning to origin for packing, the grievor ceased to be eligible for TDRA and instead became eligible for IAM&MA. As such, the grievance is denied.