April 26, 2017
41.4.114
Background
The grievor’s substantive position was located in City A. The grievor’s principal residence is in City B. In April 2015, the grievor was offered and accepted an assignment to a position within the same Department, located in City C. During the length of the assignment (April 2015-March 2016), the grievor worked under a hoteling arrangement whereby the grievor continued to work from a City A office.
On April 1st, 2016, the Department permanently deployed the grievor into the position in City C, with the caveat that the grievor would work remotely until moving to destination before the end of Summer 2017. The grievor has been teleworking and hoteling since the deployment and commutes to destination for specific events/meetings.
On April 7, 2016 the grievor requested approval for relocation expenses. This request was denied and the grievor filed a grievance.
On July 4, 2016, the parties agreed to refer the matter directly to the second level of the NJC grievance process and the grievance was partially upheld to the extent that up to $5,000 would be reimbursed for relocation expenses in accordance with an employee-requested relocation. The Department issued a written certification in October 2016 that had the vacant position not been filled as a result of an employee-requested transfer, it would have been filled through normal staffing procedures without relocation expenses being incurred. As such, an amended letter of offer was produced in order to reflect the decision. The Department further explained that a relocation can only be considered an Employer-requested one when the Department opens a national selection process, which acknowledges the need to fill a vacant position thus being an Employer-requested relocation. As the grievor’s relocation would not meet this criterion, the Employer refused to deem the grievor’s anticipated relocation as Employer-requested. Consequently, the grievor has put the relocation on hold until the matter is resolved.
Grievance
The grievor alleged that the Employer has not authorized an Employer-requested relocation as part of the grievor’s deployment in accordance with the NJC Relocation Directive. The grievor indicated that instead the Employer is attempting to treat the relocation as an employee-requested relocation.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the relocation was required by the Employer as part of the grievor’s deployment offer. It was noted that the grievor did not formally request to be deployed, that the relocation was a condition of employment placed by the Department and hence, the employee felt compelled to relocate. The representative explained that the decision of the grievor to relocate was a personal sacrifice in order to pursue a career with the Department. However, the intent of the Directive is to ensure that employees, like the grievor, who accept to relocate for a given position, are not additionally burdened with shouldering the costs of a move.
In accordance with paragraph 2.6.1, the Directive stipulates that Employer-requested relocations are to result from a staffing action, which is the grievor’s case when being deployed and hence should be entitled to the full benefits under the Directive.
In addition, the representative noted that there was no written certification that had the vacant position not been filed as a result of an employee-requested transfer, it would have been filled through normal staffing procedures without relocation expenses being incurred, which is contrary to paragraph 12.1.2(1) of the Directive. As such, the procedure was not properly applied by the Department as the relocation was not certified when the initial letter of offer was issued to the grievor. Instead, the Department issued the certification when the grievance was referred to the final level of the NJC grievance process. The representative explained that clearly, the intent of such certification is to determine the type of relocation offered at the time of the job offer. He maintained that these details are meant to allow the employee to make an informed decision before accepting the position, and hence this certification is not intended to be used by the Employer for the purpose of denying a grievance.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that dating back to the first discussion between Management and the grievor, it was agreed by both parties that the grievor’s work location is City C, that the grievor is expected to move prior to the Summer of 2017, and that no relocation would be offered.
The representative noted that the grievor signed the letter of offer which did not include any entitlements to relocation benefits. In the event that the grievor disagreed with the Department’s decision to not offer relocation, the representative argued that the grievor should have not signed the letter of offer, which constitutes a valid and binding contract where both parties have an obligation to ensure that the contract is properly written and agreed on. Furthermore, it was explained that when the grievor signed the letter, the grievor knew that no relocation would be offered as the grievor sent an email to the grievor’s spouse and Management stating it would not be granted.
The Departmental representative noted that in accordance with the definition of an employee-requested relocation, the grievor made a formal request to be relocated and as the Employer sympathized with the hardship that this situation could cause to the grievor’s family, the grievor was granted reimbursement of a maximum of $5,000 relocation benefits under the Directive. In addition, the representative explained that at the time of the offer, there were two existing pools of qualified candidates that could have been used to staff the grievor’s position.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the NJC Relocation Directive. The Executive Committee noted that there is a presumption that relocations are considered to be Employer-requested unless the Employer meets very specific criteria outlined in the Directive. As the Department did not follow the proper process to establish that the relocation should be employee-requested, the grievor should have been authorized an Employer-requested relocation. As such, the grievance is upheld.