March 20, 2019
25.4.170
Background
The grievor works at Department A. The grievor was posted to City D, Country Y and was scheduled to return to City E on August 28, 2017.
On July 27, 2017 the grievor was informed of the need to leave the grievor’s Staff Quarters (SQ) prior to August 13, 2017 due to it being allocated to an incoming officer. The grievor’s return date remained the same; however, the result was that the grievor had to prepare the household effects (HHE) for shipment earlier than anticipated.
The grievor initially intended to sell the grievor’s private motor vehicle (PMV) at post but was unsuccessful in doing so. On August 23, 2017, the grievor was asked by the A/Logistics Coordinator at Post if the PMV was to be shipped back to Country X. The grievor responded if it was still possible, yes.
The grievor returned to Country X on August 28, 2017 and on September 19, 2017, an advisor informed the grievor that given the grievor’s personal decisions, the PMV would not be shipped in the same container as the HHE and therefore, the grievor would be financially responsible for the cost difference ($4842) should the PMV be shipped.
Following exchanges between the parties on the issue as well as some internal consultations, the Department advised, on September 29, 2017, that the Department’s decision remained unchanged and that the grievor would be responsible for the additional cost of shipping the PMV back to Country X.
Following exchanges between the parties on the issue as well as some internal consultations, the Department advised, on September 29, 2017, that the Department’s decision remained unchanged and that the grievor would be responsible for the additional cost of shipping the PMV back to Country X.
On October 31, 2018, the Department responded indicating that given the lateness of the decision to send the car back to Country X and the lack of attempt to consolidate the car with the existing HHE shipment the Department reconfirmed that the grievor remained responsible for the cost of the additional shipment of the PMV back to Country X.
The grievor filed a grievance three days later.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the Department’s refusal to approve the shipment of the PMV from City D, Country Y to City E, Country X at no cost to the grievor, as well as to ensure that storage costs accrued as a result of department and mission-induced delays and decisions are not transferred to the grievor.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative’s position is that the grievor should not be financially responsible for the shipment of the PMV or the storage costs associated while awaiting shipment or sale, given that these costs were attributable to actions of the employer.
It was submitted that the grievor had intended to sell the PMV at post and only considered shipping it back to Country X when the coordinator at post presented this as an option. It was indicated that during this conversation, at no point was the grievor advised that shipping the PMV back to Country X would result in additional costs to the grievor and only became aware of the additional costs after returning to Country X. Although the department argues that the grievor should have been aware of the potential for additional shipping costs; the grievor was never provided with any mission or departmental policy concerning this and nowhere within FSD 15.18 does it stipulate that PMVs must be shipped with HHE. It was noted when the grievor departed previous posts, the PMV was shipped separately from the HHE, at no cost to the grievor. It was also indicated that the day the grievor departed from post, the HHE had still not been shipped.
The department’s position that the grievor made a personal choice to ship the PMV cannot be viewed in isolation given the proposal presented by the A/Logistics coordinator.
With respect to the Department’s argument regarding the grievor’s decision to have repairs done on the PMV, it was indicated that the Foreign Service Handbook actually encourages employees to have their PMV serviced by a mechanic prior to shipment and that doing so, would assist should there be a damage claim following shipment. It was also indicated that had the employee not been required to leave the SQ two weeks early, the PMV may have been ready with the HHE.
Finally, it was submitted that the grievor should not be responsible for the costs associated with the storage of the PMV while awaiting shipment or sale, as the additional time in storage was a result of the Department’s refusal to ship the vehicle at no cost and the delays in responding to the grievor and representative regarding the duties and taxes applicable when a vehicle is removed from diplomatic custody.
In light of the above, the employer should be fully responsible for the costs associated with both the shipment of the grievor’s PMV and the storage costs accrued as a result of Department and mission-induced delays.
Departmental Presentation
The departmental representative’s position is that the grievor never intended to ship the PMV and that only after failing to sell it locally, was the late decision made to ship it back to Country X. While the grievor indicates that the coordinator presented this option, the grievor had the responsibility to contact the administrator to clarify and confirm whether or not it was still possible to consolidate the PMV with the HHE at such a late stage.
Subsection 15.18.1 indicates that the deputy head “may authorize” shipment of a PMV and therefore, it is not an entitlement. The Department submits that authorization is subject to the principles enunciated in the Application section of FSD 15, such that “it is the sole responsibility of the employer to determine the relocation assistance that should be provided (15.1.3)” and that all relocations be managed “at the most reasonable cost to the public (15.1.4)”. It was argued that the grievor’s late decision to ship the PMV prevented the deputy head from relocating the grievor at the most reasonable cost to the public as this resulted in the use of two 20-foot containers as opposed to one 40-foot container, which represents an added expense of $4,842.
In line with the purpose and scope of the FSDs, the grievor was provided with the necessary assistance to ship the HHE and could have shipped the PMV at the same time; however, the grievor made a personal decision not to exercise that option and by approving two weeks of body work prior to departing the post, it was evident that the grievor was in no rush to ship the vehicle back.
For all the above reasons, the circumstances and associated costs surrounding the shipment of the PMV were a result of the grievor’s personal decisions and the public should not be held accountable for the added expenses as a result of the grievor’s decisions.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee which concluded the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Foreign Service Directive 15. It was noted that the grievor’s late decision to ship the PMV resulted in the use of two 20-foot containers as opposed to one 40-foot container. Given that the department covered expenses up to the cost of a 40-foot container and only sought reimbursement of the difference, the department was found to have provided the necessary assistance required to ship the grievor’s PMV. Any additional expenses should be borne by the grievor as those expenses were a result of the grievor’s personal decisions. The grievance is therefore denied.