June 21, 2017
41.4.108
Background
The grievor occupied a position with Department A in City A.
On May 14, 2012, the grievor submitted a Request for Deployment to another position, in City B for family related reasons and was relocated on June 24, 2013. Given the grievor’s Request for Deployment, the Department considered this to be an employee-requested relocation with the maximum relocation entitlement being $5,000.
Prior to making a decision with respect to the deployment, the grievor was informed of the entitlement to an amount of up to $5,000 of relocation expenses as the Department indicated that the position would have been filled through normal staffing procedures (i.e. Department’s training recruit program). It is to be noted that written certification was through an email to the grievor from the Acting Director and not from the Deputy Head. Although the Relocation Committee and the Executive Committee have already heard similar cases to this, it is the Bargaining Agent’s position that this grievance is distinct in the fact that the grievor deployed into a position which, according to the Bargaining Agent, is not a position filled through the Department’s Training Recruit Program.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving that the Employer has violated Sections 2.6, 2.7 and 12.1 of the Directive by not applying the provisions of an Employer-requested relocation.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor’s letter of offer contained a section about his relocation and that it is not specified that it is considered an employee-requested one.
Furthermore, the representative explained that there was no written certification issued by the Employer 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. There was an email dated April 30, 2013 sent by management advising the grievor that future needs will be staffed through the department recruitment program, which is considered by the Employer to be a normal staffing procedure and hence, the grievor would only be entitled to $5,000. However, it is the contention of the Bargaining Agent representative that this email does not constitute a proper written certification by the Employer. In addition, although the Employer stated that vacant positions are usually filled through the recruitment program, the representative noted that it is not the practice reflected in the grievor’s location as other experienced employees were deployed from other locations.
It is the position of the Bargaining Agent representative that the Employer prefers to pay an employee-requested relocation rather than a full relocation. However, it was noted that its preference does not determine the grievor’s entitlement in accordance with subsection 12.1.2 of the Directive and hence, the grievor should be entitled to an Employer-requested relocation.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that the grievor submitted two requests for transfer based on personal hardship/compassionate grounds, wherein the grievor outlined that there was no expectation of reimbursement for moving expenses under the Directive. On April 30, 2013, the grievor was advised that in the future, new positions would be staffed through normal staffing procedures and as such, the grievor would be entitled to a maximum of $5,000 expenses. The grievor was further informed that the decision to relocate based upon these terms was entirely up to the grievor and the grievor’s family. On May 29, 2013, the grievor was reminded of this entitlement by the Finance section and on June 12, 2013, the grievor acknowledged that all necessary information to complete the relocation had been provided, including the fact that it was deemed to be an employee-requested relocation.
The representative noted that Management was sensitive and open to the grievor’s situation and as such, granted the transfer request. It was noted that when accepting the deployment offer, the grievor was fully aware of the terms and conditions of employment.
Furthermore, the departmental representative confirmed that during this period of time, the Employer actioned two employee requests for deployment at the same location, one of which was from a local employee and hence, relocation assistance was not applicable. The other was an employee that made the request to be deployed, which resulted in the payment of the $5,000. It is the position of the Department that the grievor was willing to relocate to destination at no cost to the Employer and should there have been any concerns at the time, the grievor should have raised them with Management as the Department had other options to staff those positions.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee reviewed the report of the Relocation Committee and noted that it could not come to an agreement on the intent of the Directive. The Executive Committee could not reach consensus either. As such, the Committee reached an impasse.