April 25, 2022
41.4.141
Background
The grievor, while working in the City A region, was initially hired in the City A region for a term position from October 3, 2016, up to May 2, 2017. At the time, the grievor resided in City B, Province M.
In February 2017, the grievor became an indeterminate employee. In June 2017, they received a promotion to their current position. On September 28 and October 26, 2019, the grievor moved their property from City B to City C. On December 31, 2019, the grievor was informed that they were not eligible for relocation expenses.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the Employer’s decision not to reimburse up to $5,000 for their relocation in accordance with Department X policies and guidelines and, specifically, the Relocation Directive (the Directive).
The grievor was hired on a term basis from October 3, 2016, to May 2, 2017. In February 2017, they were awarded the position on a permanent basis followed by a promotion in June 2017.
The grievor’s employment with Department X has been uninterrupted. During this period, their place of residence had always been City B until their move to City C on Saturdays, September 28, 2019 (large furniture) and October 26, 2019 (fragile and personal effects).
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor’s employment with the Department was continuous from October 3, 2016, and their principal residence was located in City B, until they moved to City C in 2019. They advised that there had been verbal discussions related to relocation with the grievor’s manager however nothing was in written format until August 2019, when the grievor noted information from the Department’s intranet site. Four (4) months after this email, the grievor received a response from the manager advising that, after consultations with human resources, it was determined that the grievor was relocating due to personal preference and therefore not entitled to relocation benefits.
The representative argued that, although the grievor was initially hired on a term basis for less than one (1) year, they were subsequently appointed to an indeterminate position at the same location. They noted that under subsection 1.4.2 of the 2009 version of the Relocation Directive, reimbursement for relocation costs is authorized for employees who are term appointees to indeterminate positions and noted that this provision continues in the 2021 version of the Directive. They referenced the Employer’s second level reply where it is stated that the reason for the appointment was because a position became available, management was pleased with the grievor and their performance but noted there was no change in the workplace and therefore this appointment did not entail relocation benefits. The representative reminded the Committee that the grievor was selected from a national application pool which included referencing the Directive, if the 40-kilometre rule was met.
The representative noted that the grievor obtained a studio apartment in City C to reduce the daily commute, however the grievor’s principal residence remained in City B until they completed their move in 2019. That said, it was made clear that there was a significant amount of commuting required for the grievor, regardless of the studio rental or any teleworking the grievor may have done over the three (3) year period.
The representative concluded by arguing that even though the grievor was recruited initially as a result of the term contract, it was inevitable that a move would occur should the grievor be offered an indeterminate position and that this should have been known by the Employer in keeping with the principles and purpose of the Directive. They also noted that this is a grey area that should fall under the Relocation Directive if the Committee does not determine that it does, because it highlights a gap between the Directive and the Initial Appointees Relocation Program (IARP).
Departmental Presentation
The Employer representative did not disagree with any of the facts of the situation and highlighted the fact that the grievor had been working out of the same location from 2016 until 2019, commuting at their own expense the entire time. They did note that while the grievor may have posed questions around relocation entitlements, nothing formal could be located before the email in August of 2019 where the grievor wished to confirm their eligibility to the IARP. The representative indicated that the grievor was informed in December of 2019 that they were not entitled to benefits. They noted that the grievance was dismissed at the first and second levels based upon Section 1.07 of the IARP, subsection 1.4.2 of the Directive and information posted on the intranet site.
The representative reiterated the Employer’s objections to the grievance being heard by the NJC as the Employer deemed it to be untimely and found that the Relocation Directive does not apply. They acknowledged that these objections were dismissed prior to the hearing.
The representative argued that it was unclear to which Letter of Offer (LoO) the grievor was referencing as the email requesting relocation assistance was not sent until two (2) years after receiving their latest LoO. Additionally, they noted that none of the LoOs contained provisions for relocation entitlements to assist in the identification. The representative noted that section 2.11 of the Directive refers new appointees to the IARP, and that it also states that the IARP is not part of the Directive. They argued that the grievor was not entitled to relocation under the first LoO as the term appointment was for seven (7) months, not meeting the threshold of one (1) year as required under Section 1.03 of the IARP. She reviewed the definitions of the IARP and noted that the grievor was never authorized to move in association with this LoO, did not have a file opened with the CRSP, and is therefore ineligible for relocation entitlements from this point in time.
The representative noted that the workplace did not change for the second and third appointments, even though they were indeterminate, which is not in alignment with the definition of relocation as “the authorized relocation of an employee from one place of work to another.” They asserted that while the grievor did move from City B to City C, thereby impacting the grievor and their family, it was the grievor’s choice to accept the position in the City A region and to commute between the cities for three (3) years. They also argued that while subsection 1.4.2 includes term employees appointed to indeterminate positions, the lack of change in workplace excludes the grievor from the entitlement. The representative noted that the grievor had been commuting for four (4) months before being offered an indeterminate position, and then continued to commute for an additional 32 months (over two and a half years) before requesting relocation assistance. Given this decision by the grievor, they asserted that there would have been no reason for the Employer to anticipate a need for relocation.
The representative concluded that in addition to not fulfilling his responsibility of waiting for authorization prior to undertaking relocation activities, the situation does not fall under either the IARP or NJC Relocation Directive. They also indicated the grievor elected to accept a position in the City A region and voluntarily commuted for three (3) years before choosing to move.
Therefore, the representative requested that the grievance be denied.
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 Relocation Directive. The Executive Committee was unable to reach a consensus on this issue either. As such, the Executive Committee reached an impasse.