February 8, 2017
25.4.165
Background
The grievor is a Deputy Liaison Officer with Department A. On August 1, 2013, the grievor deployed from City A, Country X to City B, Country Y and relocated into a privately-leased accommodation in City C, Country Y.
When the grievor was residing in City A, either bicycle or public transportation was used as means of transportation to and from work. As City B is not accessible by bicycle or public transportation, the grievor is grieving an entitlement to Commuting Assistance under FSD 30.5.3.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving that the Department is not appropriately applying FSD 30.5.3 and does not recognize the costs of working at City B, Country Y.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor fully meets the criteria to be afforded Commuting Assistance under FSD 30.5.3. As City B and the employer’s workplace location are not accessible by public transportation, there is by default excess commuting costs to the grievor, and therefore should result in an employee’s accommodation by paying Commuting Assistance.
The representative indicated that when the grievor worked in City A, public transportation or a bike was used to and from work. In applying the principles of the FSDs, the Bargaining Agent representative argued that the grievor was placed in a less favourable situation than if the work location were in Country X, which contravenes the principle of comparability set out in the Directives. The representative also submitted that there is no suitable area to travel from when working at City B and as such, the grievor should be allowed Commuting Assistance.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative contended that the location of a privately-leased accommodation is the grievor’s choice and as such, the employer is not obligated to provide Commuting Assistance to the grievor. The representative noted that the employer imposed no limitation on the location of such privately-leased residence and that this decision is in keeping with the FSD principle of comparability as the grievor posted outside of Country X had the same freedom to choose the location of residence just as if the grievor were in City A. Therefore, just as employees working in City A have the choice to decide where to reside, and in turn, pay accordingly for their commute to work, the grievor had the choice to determine the location of residence, and thus is not entitled to Commuting Assistance. The representative also noted that the onsite parking at City B is free of charge compared to $75,00/month for the City A’s location and as such, constitutes an advantage afforded to the grievor over employees serving in City A.
The Departmental representative also indicated that at no point in the process, the grievor was led to believe that there may be a Commuting Assistance entitlement. The fact that employees posted to this area are not eligible for Commuting Assistance is clearly stated to employees in the pre-posting information session, and again prior to their house-hunting trip; in fact, the employee had acknowledged being so informed.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of FSD 30. Furthermore, the Committee agreed that FSD 30.6.2(b) was more relevant in this case, instead of FSD 30.5, as there was no imposition of accommodation location by the employer.
The Committee further noted that the grievor could have chosen other suitable locations to live, closer to work, which could have been within the employee’s commuting share cost, as such negating the need for commuting assistance. As such, the grievance is denied.