April 26, 2017
41.4.110
Background
The grievor works at Department A and accepted a deployment from City A to City B, effective January 2, 2013.
The grievor’s common-law partner is also employed by the Department and requested a deployment to City B as well. The employees were not relocated at the same time as the grievor’s partner was waiting for a vacancy at destination. As such, the grievor partially moved their Household Goods & Effects (HG&E) to destination and left the basic furniture with the grievor’s partner at origin. The grievor’s partner was relocated on August 15, 2013, 8 months after the grievor, and the rest of the HG&E followed to destination.
The Department treated this situation as one relocation for both employees in accordance with 2.4.1 of the Directive and as such, the grievor’s entitlement in regards to HG&E was limited. The grievor alleged that there were additional allowances related to the shipment of the HG&E that were withheld due to the grievor’s relationship with another departmental employee and hence, received unfair treatment based on their status. The grievor indicated that should they have not been common law partners, each of them would have had full relocation entitlements.
The grievor requested that the Program Authority at Treasury Board Secretariat grant each employee separate shipping costs for HG&E, given that the employees were not being relocated at the same time, with the understanding that the remainder of the entitlements under the Directive be shared between the employees. The grievor was not asking for additional relocation benefits but rather, a redistribution of the benefits to allow for separate shipping of smaller sets of effects. TBS denied this request, stating that should the grievor and spouse move to the same location within one year, the moves would be treated as one move and one employee would be deemed as a ‘spouse’ for the purposes of the Relocation Directive.
The grievor further indicated that the grievor is not looking for reimbursement for the HG&E that were moved on December 21, 2016 as the grievor was aware that those items were moved at the grievor’s own discretion. The grievor was ultimately grieving the shipment of HG&E which never took place.
Given that the relocation was completed in 2013, the grievor is aware that a portion of the corrective action (reimbursement of relocation costs for personal belongings) is now moot as these belongings were moved to destination when the grievor’s spouse moved in July 2013. As such, the grievor is now requesting compensation under the Directive (Part V IAM&MA) for the time the grievor was separated from the grievor’s personal belongings (January 2 – July 29, 2013).
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the Department’s failure to appropriately apply section 2.4.1 of the NJC Relocation Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that subsection 2.4.1 was incorrectly applied by the Department to the extent that the grievor’s spouse was not in a position to relocate with the grievor at the same time and as such, the two deployments should have been treated as individual, separate situations, each one with its own entitlements under the Directive.
The representative submitted that the grievor is not trying to take advantage of the situation for monetary gain, but is solely seeking equitable treatment given the grievor’s marital status. Furthermore, the Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor was without HG&E from January 2 to July 29, 2013, an extraordinary length of time for which the grievor received no compensation. Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.1.8 outline the Employer’s responsibilities which stipulate that it shall ensure that accommodation of employee needs is provided to the point of undue hardship, which was not met by the Employer. It is the Bargaining Agent’s position that this situation is not in keeping with the intent of the Directive as there was no effort to recognize the unique challenges represented by the marital status of the two employees, only one of whom was being deployed.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative indicated that at issue in this grievance is whether section 2.4.1 of the Directive was properly applied to the grievor’s relocation when the grievor’s common-law partner’s relocation was processed under the initial relocation and they were only granted one move of their HG&E. The representative noted that given that the grievor’s partner was relocating to the same location and had moved within one year of the opening of the relocation file, the grievor’s relocation entitlement only granted one move of their HG&E in accordance with section 2.4.1 of the Directive.
Furthermore, the Departmental representative explained that the grievor chose to make arrangements and incur costs before the relocation was formally authorized and arrangements could be discussed. This contravenes paragraph 2.2.2.1 of the Directive. It is argued that the Department is not required to cover the costs which an employee incurs without proper authorization, regardless of whether or not the cost could have been eligible for reimbursement and as such, the grievance should be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Relocation Committee. The Executive Committee could not come to an agreement on the intent of the Directive. As such, the Executive Committee reached an impasse.