October 12, 2016
41.4.95
Background
The grievor was working at Location A. The grievor was advised that the work unit would be relocated to Location B and that relocation expenses under the NJC Relocation Directive (Directive) might be applicable.
When the grievor contacted the Finance Section, it was determined that the residence at origin was within 40 km of the new workplace location and as such, the Employer refused to offer the grievor relocation.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the Department’s decision to deny eligibility for relocation benefits under the Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that while the Employer considered that the shortest usual public route is to drive through City A, the alternative route is deemed to be faster as the grievor avoids traffic congestion. It is the position of the Bargaining Agent representative that a narrow view of the Directive is being used by the Department to determine the appropriate route which disadvantages the grievor and favours the Employer. The representative explained that the term ‘shortest usual public route’ is being construed to exclude the time it takes to travel to the new place of duty and is not taking into consideration the ‘usual’ route the grievor would take to travel to Location B, even if this results in additional kilometres travelled.
Furthermore, the representative indicated that the move to Location B was distressing as the grievor had purposefully set up a budget based on the purchase of a home within close proximity of Location A to avoid commuting and its associated cost such as increased gas consumption and wear and tear on an aging vehicle.
Departmental Presentation
It is the Department’s position that relocation expenses are not applicable as the grievor does not live at least 40 km (by the shortest usual public route) closer to the new place of work. In accordance with the Directive, it is required that the distance be measured by the ‘shortest public route’ and hence, the 3 possible shortest public routes from the grievor’s residence are all under 40 km to Location B.
The Departmental representative explained that although the grievor requests that a different route be used to determine entitlement under the Directive, which is a route that adds an additional 13 km to the distance, thereby exceeding the 40 km requirement to allow the relocation benefits, it is the position of the Employer that the Directive does not provide this discretion.
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 in accordance with paragraph 1.4.5 of the Directive, the eligibility for relocation benefits shall only be authorized when the employee’s new principal residence is at least 40 kms, by the shortest usual public route, closer to the new place of work than his/her residence, which is not the grievor’s case. As such, the grievance is denied.