March 11, 2020
25.4.180
Background
The grievor is employed at Department Y. The grievor was posted to City A, Country N from July 2013 to June 2016. Prior to going to post, the grievor lived in City B but commuted to City C (headquarters) each day for work. In preparing for departure, the grievor discussed their living situation with the Department and despite not residing in the headquarters city, the grievor was approved for relocation entitlements related to the move from City B to City A (e.g. interim accommodations, shipment of effects, long-term storage, etc.).
Following the assignment in City A, the grievor was cross-posted to City D, Country P, from June 2016 to May 2018. Upon completion of the cross posting, the grievor was scheduled to return to Canada May 2018. In the months leading up to their return, the grievor contacted the Department to request among other things, temporary accommodations in City B, as that is where the grievor resided prior to being posted abroad and added that they would be undergoing language training in City B upon the grievor’s return.
In response to this request, the grievor’s FSD Client Advisor informed them that given that their position number was fixed to City C, all FSDs would then be based on City C and, despite taking language training in City B, entitlements would not apply, as it is not the HQ city. After some internal discussions, the Department ultimately agreed to ship the grievor’s effects to City B on an exceptional basis, but would not authorize temporary accommodations in City B or meals and incidentals for the grievor’s spouse who returned to City B a month prior as managerial discretion could not be applied in this case.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the refusal by Department Y to authorize temporary accommodation expenses in City B upon the grievor’s repatriation to Canada, via FSD 15.31.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent is of the opinion that the grievor was not treated within the intent of FSD 15. The position of the Bargaining Agent is that the grievor was originally posted from City B and that the grievor was granted temporary accommodation in City B for the weeks leading up to their departure. It was noted that, in March 2018, the Department agreed to ship the grievor’s effects to City B, up to the cost of shipping them to City C. The Bargaining Agent argued that the Department could adopt a similar “up to the cost of City C” approach with regards to the grievor’s temporary accommodation request.
The Bargaining Agent indicated that for two years prior to departing from post, the grievor commuted from City B to City C each business day. It was further noted that the grievor purchased monthly City B to City C commuting bus passes from Company Z. For three tax years, the Canada Revenue Agency accepted the grievor’s commuting passes as federal non-refundable tax credits under the “public transit” category. As such, the Bargaining Agent argued that City B satisfies the definition of “place of duty” within FSD 15. The Bargaining Agent concluded by stating that, by extension, City B also satisfies the requirement for “place of duty” stipulated within FSD 15.31.1. Therefore, the grievor’s temporary accommodation request should be approved.
Departmental Presentation
The Department is of the opinion that the grievor was treated within the intent of FSD 15. The Department indicated that while it was argued that City B should be considered a reasonable commuting distance to the grievor’s place of duty/City C (as per the definition in FSD 15), this argument was presented given that the grievor personally decided to live in City B and commute to City C every day prior to being posted abroad.
The Department further argued that, although the definition of place of duty does not provide a clear threshold for what is considered a reasonable commuting distance, commuting from City B to City C does not fall within the intent of the definition contained in FSD 15. As such, the grievance should be denied.
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 Directive. As such, the grievance is upheld.