July 8, 2022
41.4.143
Background
The grievor was an indeterminate employee at Department X in Region M. In 2020, the grievor applied for a position in Region N and was successful. The Regional Director provided the grievor with a letter of offer dated September 21, 2020, for a full-time indeterminate deployment with a start date of October 19, 2020. The letter indicated that the grievor qualified for relocation assistance.
The grievor contacted the Relocation Advisor and requested assistance with relocating from their residence in City A, Province G to a new residence in Region N. The grievor indicated that they wanted to relocate to a residence closer to City B, Province H due to family reasons and was told that relocation assistance was predicated on their relocation to City C, Province J, not City B, Province H. The grievor was notified on October 1, 2020, that the relocation request for City B had been denied as it was determined to be for personal reasons, however that same day, the Regional Director indicated that regional management had agreed to the conditions as outlined by the grievor. No alternative solution proposed by the grievor was found acceptable to relocation staff, and relocation assistance was refused. Faced with a tight deadline to report for work in the new position on October 19, the grievor completed the sale of their residence and the move of their family and effects to City B, Province H at their own expense.
On May 10, 2021, the grievor filed their reimbursement claim and was notified on May 12, 2021, that their move was not authorized and informed them of their right to file a grievance. A grievance was filed on May 14, 2021.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the Employer’s refusal to pay for their relocation expenses as provided for in the Directive.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the department and bargaining agent arguments concerning timeliness and could not reach agreement on the issue of timeliness. As such, the Executive Committee reached an impasse on the issue of timeliness and therefore agreed that there was no need to debate the issue of merits of the case.