November 8, 2017
28.4.634
Background
The grievor is an employee at Department A. The grievor first received a letter from Human Resources in 2013 advising that the grievor was selected for relocation to a new location, effective April 1, 2013. It was only on March 16, 2016, that the grievor had a verbal conversation with and received an email of confirmation from the grievor’s supervisor to inform the grievor that the office at City A was closing on July 1, 2016, and that the grievor would be required to report for work in City B starting July 4, 2016.
The grievor’s workplace was initially relocated from City B to City A in July 1988. After commuting more than 40 km per day for a period of six months, the grievor chose to relocate from City B to City A without financial assistance from the Employer. As a result of an audit, Human Resources (HR) issued letters to all employees impacted by the relocation at the workplace in 2013. The letter advised employees of their entitlements under the Work Force Adjustment (WFA) Directive. However, since the grievor was already residing in the area, the grievor did not receive WFA entitlements.
When the grievor received an email from the supervisor in March 2016, the grievor expected it to be followed by an official letter from HR like the one received before. Instead, no entitlements were offered. The grievor is of the opinion the WFA Directive applies because the grievor’s residence and new office are 45 kilometres apart via what the grievor considers a normal and safe route. The evaluation of the distance made by the Employer on September 28, 2016, requires driving through the Location X, which the grievor considers to be unsafe.
The grievor claims the stress associated with the relocation affected the grievor’s health resulting in a period of sick leave from June 15, 2016 to March 17, 2017 and a period of vacation from March 20, 2017, to June 23, 2017. The grievor ultimately retired on June 28, 2017.
Grievance
The employee is grieving that the Employer misinterprets the application of the Work Force Adjustment Directive thus depriving the grievor of the rights related to the closure of the work unit and thereby avoiding its obligations.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the circumstances and arguments with respect to timeliness concerning this grievance and agreed that the grievance is untimely. As such, the grievance is dismissed.