October 12, 2016
41.4.109
Background
The grievor is an employee with Department A and relocated from City A to City B.
The grievor submitted a deployment request to relocate to City B and stated that the reason for such request was for family related reasons.
After the grievor was relocated to destination, it became apparent that three (3) other employees had, or were in the process of relocating to City B. All four (4) relocations, including the grievor’s, were deemed employee-requested. Although the Department stated that the vacant positions would have been staffed through normal staffing procedures and capped at $5,000 for initial appointees, the grievor is arguing that the vacant positions in City B could not have been filled locally and as such, the grievor should have been entitled to the full relocation benefits.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving that the Employer did not follow the Directive in regards to his deployment and is entitled to the full relocation package in accordance with subsection 12.1.2 of the Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the employee relocated based on the need of the Employer to staff the position at destination. The representative noted that following the grievor’s deployment, 3 other employees relocated from another location and hence, the positions in City B were not staffed through the Department’s training program.
The representative indicated 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. However, it is the Bargaining Agent representative’s position that the staffing of the position incurred relocation expenses from either the grievor’s deployment and would have resulted in relocation expenses being paid if a recruit from their training program was hired, albeit capped at $5,000.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that the Employer’s rational for certifying that the grievor’s position would have filled locally without any relocation expenses is based on the fact that at the time being, an employee with a priority for Relocation of spouse was also assessed against the conditions of employment of the position, and whose deployment would not have incurred expenses for the Department.
The representative noted that the grievor was advised on numerous occasions that there would be a maximum of $5,000 of relocation expenses paid and that the relocation was considered an employee-requested one. In addition, this condition was also placed in the letter of offer, the representative noted is a binding contract, and any dispute over the amount of relocation assistance, should have been raised at the time of its signing.
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.