June 19, 2019
41.4.128
Background
In 2013, the grievor, an employee of Department X, requested a transfer from City A, Province G to City B, Province H. On October 29, 2013, the District Director certified that the grievor’s position was vacant and that if it had not been filled by an employee-requested transfer, then it would have been filled through a normal staffing procedure, where the District would not have incurred relocation expenses. On November 26, 2013, the grievor received the letter of offer. This letter stated that the maximum amount that the grievor could receive for relocation expenses, given that this relocation was deemed employee-requested, was up to $5,000 as per the NJC Relocation Directive. Subsequently, the grievor initiated correspondence with the Department inquiring whether this relocation was indeed considered an employer or employee requested relocation. Once confirmed through email correspondence that the relocation was employee-requested, the grievor signed the letter of offer on December 5, 2013. The starting date for the position was January 16, 2014.
In January 2014, the grievor continued to correspond with the Department and question paragraph 12.1.2 (a) which refers to written certification regarding the vacant position. The District Director reiterated that written certification was indeed provided. They further explained that the written certification stated that, had the position not been filled through an employee-requested transfer, it would have been filled through normal staffing procedures. Following these emails, the grievor submitted a grievance on January 28, 2014. It should be noted that the grievor was indeed reimbursed the full $5,000 under an employee-requested relocation. Furthermore, while the grievance was filed in 2014, it was placed in abeyance until the parties were prepared to consult on the grievance. The Bargaining Agent consulted on the grievance in early 2018.In January 2014, the grievor continued to correspond with the Department and question paragraph 12.1.2 (a) which refers to written certification regarding the vacant position. The District Director reiterated that written certification was indeed provided. They further explained that the written certification stated that, had the position not been filled through an employee-requested transfer, it would have been filled through normal staffing procedures. Following these emails, the grievor submitted a grievance on January 28, 2014. It should be noted that the grievor was indeed reimbursed the full $5,000 under an employee-requested relocation. Furthermore, while the grievance was filed in 2014, it was placed in abeyance until the parties were prepared to consult on the grievance. The Bargaining Agent consulted on the grievance in early 2018.
Grievance
The employee is grieving that the Employer has violated the National Joint Council Relocation Directive by refusing to deem the relocation an employer-related relocation, and refusing to compensate the grievor for full expenses as an employer-requested relocation.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative’s position is that the Department would have been unable to fill the position through normal staffing processes without incurring relocation expenses. Rather than paying for an employer-requested relocation, the Department prefers to pay up to $5,000 under an employee-requested relocation; however, preference does not determine entitlements. While the employer certifies that the position could have been staffed without relocation expenses being incurred, the employer has not articulated how that would have been accomplished.
It was argued that, unless the employer could staff the position without incurring relocation costs, the employee is entitled to have their relocation treated as an employer-requested relocation. It was submitted that there are no longer local staffing practices and that Department X was using a National Staffing process to fill its vacancies. It was noted that another employee was also deployed and was restricted to the employee-requested relocation reimbursements. Finally, it was added that the appointment of a new recruit would have also resulted in expenses, as the new employee would have received entitlements under the Initial Appointees Relocation Program.
In light of the above, the representative submits that despite the certification, the employer would have been unable to fill the position through normal staffing procedures without incurring relocation expenses and therefore the grievor should be compensated at the employer requested rate.
It was brought forward that similar files (41.4.107, 41.4.108, 41.4.109) have been presented before the NJC Relocation Committee and have resulted in an impasse.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative’s position is that the grievor was treated within the intent of the NJC Relocation Directive as the grievor was informed their transfer would be considered employee-requested, the grievor was aware of the terms before making a decision and accepted those terms, receiving $5000 for the relocation.
Upon receipt of the grievor’s request for a deployment for personal reasons, management was open to granting the request and supporting the grievor’s desire for mobility. However, the grievor was advised at the outset that the deployment would be considered employee-requested and this was reiterated again in the grievor’s letter of offer. Although the grievor requested that this be changed to an employer-requested relocation, the Department indicated that this was not possible. The grievor signed the letter of offer shortly thereafter.
It was stated that hundreds of relocation requests similar to that of the grievor’s are submitted each year to Department X for a variety of reasons. Local directors are open to considering such requests as a means to supporting employees’ mobility.
The Department submits that the grievor has been treated within the intent of the NJC Relocation Directive and was advised of the terms of the deployment prior to accepting the position.
When asked how the position would have been staffed otherwise, it was explained that the department would have reviewed the employment profile required and considered recruits from Department X’s college.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee reviewed the report of the Relocation Committee and noted that the Relocation Committee could not come to an agreement on whether the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive. The Executive Committee could not reach consensus on this issue either. As such, the Executive Committee reached an impasse.