October 12, 2016
41.4.107
Background
The grievor is an employee with Department A and relocated from Location A to Location B.
The grievor submitted a deployment request to relocate to Location B and stated that the reason for such request was for family related reasons. As such, the Department treated the relocation as employee-requested and compensated the grievor accordingly.
The grievor asserted that there was a requirement to report at destination by a specific date in order to fulfil the Employer’s needs thus placing a condition on the relocation. Given this information, it is the grievor’s position that no other staffing option existed for the Employer which would meet the immediate need to fill the vacancy and mitigate relocation costs. As such, it is the grievor’s prerogative that the relocation should be considered Employer requested.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving that there was not appropriate compensation for the relocation as per the Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
It is the position of the Bargaining Agent representative that given that the position in question was vacant, the relocation should be considered Employer-requested. The representative explained that the most probable method of staffing would be to recruit through the Department’s Officer Induction Training Program. All new Officers trained in this program must be willing to work anywhere in Canada, including remote and rural areas. In the case of the grievor’s position being filled by a recruit, there would still be relocation expenses incurred by the Department and paid by the Employer, albeit capped at the initial appointment maximum of $5000.
As such, the Bargaining Agent representative noted that in accordance with paragraph 12.1.2.1, the Deputy Head cannot certify 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. The representative indicated that there was a vacancy that when filled would have resulted in relocation expenses, and as such, the grievor is entitled to the benefits of an Employer-requested relocation.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative noted that the grievor was advised on two different occasions that the relocation was deemed employee-requested. In fact, the representative indicated that the grievor acknowledged that the relocation was requested by the grievor.
It is the Department’s prerogative that the position could have been staffed by other means; however, the Employer decided to accommodate the grievor who was seeking a deployment to be closer to family.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the grievance and documentation on file and could not reach consensus on the intent of the Directive. As such, the Committee reached an impasse.