Temporary Dual Residence

The grievor sought an additional 3 months of Temporary dual residence assistance (TDRA) and to be reinstated to his former level or equivalent in (Area A). The grievor's request for reinstatement to his former position was withdrawn.

The grievor was declared surplus and accepted a position in another area. The grievor received 9 months of TDRA for the period of June 1, 1995 to February 29, 1996. TDRA expenses ($3,483.78) for the period of March 1, 1996 to May 31, 1996 were rejected. It is maintained that the grievor rented a very modest accommodation ($425/month).

The grievor put his residence in (Area A) up for sale and he was unable to secure a reasonable offer due to the depressed housing market. The housing market in (Area B) (where he was moving to) was inflated. The grievor did not list his house with a real estate agent as he was not made aware that it was a requirement to gain full reimbursement of TDRA expenses.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor was declared surplus and reluctantly accepted a lower level position on May 1, 1995 as he was advised that a refusal could result in a layoff from the Public Service. He was also advised that he would receive full benefits under Work Force Adjustment Directive since the new position was 180 km from his residence. The Bargaining Agent representative claimed that employees were being advised not to purchase a home in (Area B) while the prices were unduly inflated. The extension was requested by the grievor as there were conditions beyond his control in regards to the sale of his home in (Area A) and in the purchase of a new home in (Area B). There was poor real estate market in (Area A) because of some 350 positions being transferred from one area to the other which created an inflated market in (Area B). The grievor did not purchase a house in (Area B) until October 1996.

At the time the grievor accepted the new position he was given a copy of the Relocation Directive by the Department and was assured that he would be eligible to receive up to 1 year TDRA reimbursed because of his situation. The representative maintained that whenever the grievor phoned for information, he was advised to read the Directive. The grievor started to make claims for TDRA in June 1995 and only encountered problems concerning reimbursement when he made a claim for an additional 3 months under article 2.18.4. At that point, the grievor requested that his case be considered by the Deputy Head as his home had still not been sold in (Area A).

The Bargaining Agent stated that the grievor's request for TDRA was denied and he was also admonished for not actively pursuing the sale of his house during the period of relocation assistance. The Department advised the grievor that he should have listed his house with a Realtor and had it appraised by a professional. It is maintained that at no point prior to that had anyone indicated to the grievor that he had to use a Realtor. It is also maintained that articles 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. were not followed by the Department. The representative stated that the grievor was also advised that he could apply for the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan which was another incorrect piece of advice he received.

The Bargaining Agent maintained that the grievor never received any guidance or advice from the Department, he was told to read the Work Force Adjustment Directive and the Relocation Directive. Without any direction, the grievor was required to make a number of decisions concerning his position and relocation. He was not given any reassurance that he would be reimbursed for all costs related to the Relocation directive, so he did not wish to solicit the aid of a Realtor and possibly not be reimbursed for his costs. Many of the homes on the grievor's street were for sale and listed with Realtors, the homes were not selling. The grievor thought that section 3.6 of the Directive gave him an option of selling the home privately and that this was an acceptable practice.

The grievor tried to sell his home privately in order to save money. After six months the listed homes were not selling eventhough homeowners had dropped their asking prices by $10,000 to $20,000. The representative stated that the grievor never requested reimbursement of costs related to a house hunting trip while he was renting in (Area B).

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the copy of the Relocation Directive that the grievor received did not mention the Extension to TDRA which stated that: "Departments may require that the employee produce evidence that: a professional appraisal was performed at the time the employee was authorized to relocate and the house was listed at a price reflecting the appraised value; the dwelling is being actively marketed by an accredited real estate broker; the housing market is slow, or; reductions in price have been made to attract potential buyers. Departments may also require any other information that would justify an extension of assistance." The grievor became aware of the requirements in January 1997 from the Human Resources section of his new Department.

It was pointed out that the grievor was advised on October 2, 1996 that his house had to be appraised professionally and that he had to prove that it was in fact up for sale. This was almost 7 months after the grievor had passed the 9 months TDRA. The grievor could not change the situation after the fact.

It is maintained that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive as per art. 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 clause (a) and (c) and art. 2.18.4. The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor should be reimbursed the amount requested.

The Departmental representative stated that at the time of the grievor's request for the TDRA extension in April 1996, he had indicated that he did not wish to purchase a home in (Area B) yet as he wanted to explore possibilities under the Alternate Program. The representative advised that the employer's position regarding the denial of the grievance was that the grievor had not made aggressive efforts to sell his house and that the market situation was not sufficient to consider the situation an exceptional one where an extension of the TDRA should be allowed. The representative explained that the main facts were that the grievor did not have his house appraised by a professional; he did not use a real estate agent to sell; he did not advertise the house in the papers; he had only put a home made "for sale" sign on the property and did not put his house for sale privately until at least September 1995, while he had commenced working at the new Department in May 1995.

The fact that the housing market was not favorable is not in dispute. While article 3.6.1 does allow for private sale, sections 3.4 to 3.6 of the Directive dealing with assistance as it relates to the sale of the home is quite clear about certain obligations when selling. The Department's view was that the grievor had not taken sufficient measures to actively market his house, therefore not fulfilling the intent of article 2.18.4 which is that the situation must be one of exceptional circumstances beyond the employee's control. It was determined that it was within the grievor's control to take timely and practical measures to sell the house, which he had not done. With respect to section 1.2, it is maintained that the grievor met with Human Resources Officials in April 1995 and received a copy of the Directive. Also, several Departmental officials from both Finance and Human Resources have confirmed having had dealings with the grievor about claims. It is the Department's position that the requirements of the directive under those articles were respected.

The Departmental representative advised the Committee that the grievor's original request for TDRA extension made no mention of the arguments used during the grievance procedure. The grievor had registered in the Alternate's program and did not wish to commit to purchasing a home in (Area B) until sufficient time be allowed for the program to take its course. It is believed that he grievor's efforts were geared elsewhere rather than towards selling his house and moving to (Area B). The Department representative maintains that the grievor was treated within the intent of the relocation Directive.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive. The Committee agreed that article 2.18.4 is at the discretion of the Deputy Head and that there was no indication that the grievor had aggressively attempted to sell his house.

The grievance was denied.