April 19, 2018
41.4.120
Background
The grievor is an employee at Department X whose workplace was relocated from Establishment (hereafter Est.) Y in City A, Province F to Est. Z in City B, Province F on December 6, 2004. The grievor’s personal residence was in City C, Province F and the distance to the original workplace, City A was 49 km. The distance between City C, Province F and the new workplace, City B was 70 km. Finally, the distance between the previous workplace, City A, Province F and the new workplace, City B, Province F was only 36 km. The grievor was paid for two months of travel expenses to travel to Est. Z in City B, Province F from December 2004 to February 27, 2005.
On January 23, 2005, the grievor was provided with the official letter informing the grievor that the grievor’s position would be reassigned to City B, Province F effective February 28, 2005. The grievor was not provided a WFA letter, was not offered relocation and did not receive any resale incentive at the time. The grievor’s assignment to Est. Z became effective February 28, 2005, and travel expenses ceased from that date. The grievor did not relocate the grievor’s home, but continued to commute to the new workplace from the home in City C, Province F on a daily basis.
On August 15, 2011, the grievor was declared surplus from the grievor’s position in City B, Province F and was provided with a guaranteed reasonable job offer in City D, Province F. This position was 4.5 hours from the grievor’s principal residence in City C, Province F. The grievor obtained a secondary residence in proximity to the new workplace. The reasonable job offer included entitlements under the NJC Relocation Directive. In reviewing these entitlements, the grievor then believed that the grievor would have been entitled to benefits in 2004.
According to the Bargaining Agent, although the grievance statement only referred to the NJC Relocation Directive and the corrective measures speak to a reimbursement of the “non-sale incentive and other entitlements including interest and monies owed. To be made a whole”, the grievance also pertains to the Commuting Assistance Directive.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving not being treated in the scope of the National Joint Council Relocation Directive when being reassigned from Est. Y to Est. Z in December 2004.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the circumstances and arguments with respect to timeliness concerning these grievances and agreed that the grievances are untimely. Notwithstanding, the Executive Committee noted the NJC Relocation Directive does not apply as the grievor did not relocate in 2004. The grievor relocated in 2011 and received relocation assistance under the NJC Relocation Directive at that time. As such, the grievances are dismissed.