March 20, 2019
25.4.176
Background
The grievor was cross posted from City A, Country F to City B, Country G effective August 7, 2017. Prior to commencing the posting, the grievor and spouse searched online for houses and subsequently took a House Hunting Trip (HHT) to City B.
The HHT was requested via an HHT Eligibility Form and approved by an FSD Client Advisor on June 22, 2017. On June 23, 2017 there was an email exchange between the grievor, the grievor’s spouse and a Relocation Assistant in City B about a property they were interested in. The grievor received a Posting Confirmation Form (PCF) on June 30, 2017, and took the HHT from July 9 to 13, 2017. On July 24, 2017, the grievor submitted an expense claim for the HHT.
The Department sought clarification from the grievor with respect to various aspects of the claim (i.e. cost of accommodations, travel plan…etc.). The grievor responded to the Department’s concerns; however, on November 17, 2017, the grievor’s claim for the HHT was ultimately denied.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the refusal by Department X to reimburse, as per FSD 15.28, expenses incurred as a result of the July 2017 House Hunting Trip to City B, Country G.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative’s position is that the grievor undertook a pre-approved HHT, provided documentation substantiating the HHT and therefore, should be reimbursed expenses incurred for the HHT.
Although the grievor received approval for return airfare, it was indicated that the grievor elected to rent a vehicle on the way to City B due to it being more economical. Although this was not pre-approved, the Directive does allow for car rental expenses to be claimed.
Regarding the nightly accommodation rate, it was submitted that the pre-approved amounts were only estimates and should not be considered as maximums. The grievor was faced with limited availability due to the short notice booking which was partially attributable to the delays in receiving the PCF. Availability was further limited given the holiday season where accommodations were in high demand. It was submitted that these factors should be considered in determining the appropriate accommodation rate.
Regarding the employer’s position that the grievor had already identified a residence prior to the HHT, it was argued the grievor’s online searches and ranking of potential homes does not negate the need for a HHT. It was submitted that online searches are a common practice and that the House Hunting and Relocation Guide actually encourages employees to use online house hunting tools prior to undertaking an in-person HHT. Furthermore, preferred options may be subject to change following in-person evaluations and sudden changes in availability.
The employer’s contention that the grievor’s trip was merely to facilitate finalizing the lease may have been predicated on a series of emails between the grievor, the grievor’s spouse and the Department; however, it was highlighted that some of these exchanges occurred even before the grievor received the PCF and many after the HHT was approved. Furthermore, the correspondence confirms that the grievor was still considering other houses and later provided a list of 14 other properties visited during the HHT.
It should be noted that prior to taking the HHT, the grievor submitted an application to opt-up and increase the rent ceiling by two levels. This application was under review by the Department until the final day of the grievor’s HHT and given the uncertainty of the opt-up request; the grievor also submitted a rental application for an alternate property. Although the opt-up application was eventually denied, the grievor was able to negotiate the rent on the preferred unit within the rent ceiling and officially secured the residence on July 15, 2017.
While the Department has denied the grievor’s claim in full on the grounds that the grievor was not house hunting, the Bargaining Agent representative submits that given the variables described above, the supporting documentation validating the trip and the Department’s pre-approval of said trip, the grievor should be reimbursed the expenses of the HHT.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative’s position is that a HHT is not an entitlement and requires employees to be actively searching for a house. Given the sequence of events, it was argued that the grievor was not actively searching and that the purpose of the grievor’s trip was to facilitate the signing of the lease.
It was submitted that the grievor and the grievor’ss spouse expressed interest in signing a lease for the property in question as early as June 23, 2017. On July 3 and 7, 2017, the Mission was involved in reviewing a draft lease for the property, handling inquiries from the Real Estate Agent regarding payment modalities and diplomatic clauses, as well as providing banking information forms. One day after arriving for the HHT, the grievor and spouse contacted the Mission to advise that they met the owners at the property of interest, would like to move towards finalizing the lease and would send a draft lease with rent amounts to be prepared for signatures.
Given the timelines, it is difficult for the Department to believe that the grievor was carefully and thoroughly looking at houses during the course of the HHT.
The Departmental representative also indicated that the Mission was contacted to review the list of properties that the grievor claims to have viewed during the HHT; with the exception of three properties, the rest either had no rental records or would not have been listed for rent during the appropriate month.
An HHT is not an entitlement; as the grievor had already identified a home, it cannot be demonstrated that the HHT was cost-effective. As such, the grievor was treated within the intent of the Foreign Service Directives.
When asked why the grievor’s HHT was not from the present place of duty (City A) to the new place of duty (City B) as per paragraph 15.28.1(a), it was indicated that the grievor was granted exceptional approval to travel from HQ (City C).
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee which concluded the grievor had not been treated within the intent of the FSD 15. It was noted that the employee met all the conditions of an HHT insofar as being authorized; travelling to the new post; and securing a residence. With the understanding that the approved itinerary was City C/City B/City C, the employee should be reimbursed for admissible expenses under FSD 15.28. As such the grievance is upheld.