June 10, 2020
41.4.132
Background
The grievor works for Department X at Location A in City D, Province G. On January 18, 2016, the grievor accepted an assignment to Location B located in City E, Province G, until May 15, 2016, pending a permanent deployment to Location B. On April 20, 2016, the grievor attended an assessment interview in order to be deployed to said location; however, failed the assessment. As a result, the grievor’s assignment was extended until January 17, 2017.
Prior to being assigned to Location B, the grievor owned a house in City E which the grievor rented to tenants until July 2016. In July 2016, while still on assignment, the grievor moved into the house in City E. On September 21, 2016, the grievor underwent a second assessment interview with the intent to deploy to Location B. The grievor successfully completed this interview and as such, was permanently deployed on December 5, 2016. The letter of offer dated December 19, 2016, advised the grievor that they were entitled to receive relocation assistance of up to $5,000 under the NJC Relocation Directive.
Following receipt of the letter of offer, the grievor registered with the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP) for their relocation to City E. However, on January 30, 2017, management informed the grievor that their relocation file would be closed and that they would not be reimbursed for any relocation expenses incurred as they had relocated to City E prior to receiving the letter of offer. On March 22, 2017, the grievor submitted a grievance.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the decision of the Employer to close their relocation file and to deny the relocation allowance.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative is of the opinion that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive. It was submitted that the grievor acted in good faith at all times during the dispute leading to the grievance. The grievor was verbally offered a deployment; however, the Department then changed the offer to an assignment, and revoked the grievor’s eligibility for travel status. When the grievor failed the assessment interview, the grievor was told by management to proceed as though being deployed and was encouraged to move, indicating that it was only a matter of time before the grievor would be officially deployed. It was argued that the Department did not inform the grievor not to proceed with relocation activities prior to consulting with the CRSP; on the contrary, the grievor was encouraged by the Department to do so. As such, the Department did not fulfill its responsibility as per subsection 2.2.1.2 of the NJC Relocation Directive.
It was also submitted that the Department insisted that the grievor sign the assignment forms to the Location B, specifying that the grievor would not be on travel status as they would be officially transferred in a timely manner. The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor accepted this condition as they were under the impression that the assignment period would be brief.
With respect to the Department’s argument that the grievor was aware that a letter of offer was required in order to receive benefits under the Directive, the Bargaining Agent representative argued that the document referred to by the Department indicated that the grievor was under the understanding they could move prior to receiving a letter of offer and then submit a reimbursement request upon reception of the letter of offer.
The Bargaining Agent representative referred to two decisions from the NJC Executive Committee: 41.4.38 and 41.4.45. In both decisions, the grievors were initially denied relocation benefits as they moved prior to receiving a letter of offer, however, the NJC Executive Committee upheld the grievances given that the Department did not meet its obligations under subsection 2.1.1 of the Relocation Directive.
The Bargaining Agent representative concluded by noting that the grievor decided to move in the context that they were working far from their place of residence, without any of the Travel Directive benefits, for an extended period of time. It was argued that penalizing the grievor would be contrary to subsection 1.2.1 of the Directive, which states that the relocation should have a “minimum detrimental effect on the employee”.
Departmental Presentation
The Employer representative is of the opinion that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive. It was submitted that there was no indeterminate position available at Location B. As such, in order to accept the request by the grievor to work at that location, the Department offered an assignment. With regards to the training, it was noted that it is a mandatory training for similar positions across the country, and therefore, by initially failing the training, the grievor was prevented from being deployed sooner.
It was argued that the grievor did not fulfill their responsibility as per subsection 2.2.2.2 of the Relocation Directive and, as such, is personally financially responsible for relocation expenses that the grievor incurred. It was argued that the grievor does not dispute having moved prior to receiving a letter of offer and confirmed moving to City E in July 2016. The Employer representative also indicated that there is no document supporting the claim that the Department told the grievor to proceed as though they were being deployed.
The Employer representative referred to subsection 2.1.1 which indicates that the authorization shall be in advance of the relocation, and that it be in writing. It was argued that the written authorization was provided to the grievor five months after the relocation. The Employer representative further noted that according to subsection 2.1.1, the approval from the Program Authority at the Treasury Board Secretariat is required for post authorization of more than 30 days. In this case, the grievor did not submit a post authorization request.
The Employer representative argued that the grievor was aware that a letter of offer was required in order to receive benefits under the Directive, referring to a document submitted by the grievor. Furthermore, it was indicated that the grievor was familiar with the Relocation Directive given that they were relocated twice in the past; in 2011 and in 2014. The Employer representative further argued that the grievor was well aware of the consequences of their decision and that by moving prior to having successfully completed the training, the grievor was taking the risk of not being reimbursed.
The Employer representative concluded by referring to three decisions from the NJC Executive Committee: 41.4.22, 41.4.105 and 41.4.106. It was argued that these decisions confirm that reimbursement of justifiable and reasonable expenses should only be considered once the relocation has been authorized.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Relocation Committee and noted that it could not reach a consensus on whether the grievor was treated within the intent of the NJC Relocation Directive. The Executive Committee was unable to reach a consensus on this issue either. As such, the Executive Committee reached an impasse.