November 9, 2022
25.4.193
Background
The grievor was working in City B, Country H. On March 18, 2020 while on vacation in City C, Country J with their spouse, the grievor was declared non-essential by the Employer and was instructed to evacuate directly to Country K under FSD 64. The grievor and their spouse therefore had only one suitcase each, containing clothes for one week, when they returned to Country K. The grievor made purchases to replace personal items left at post and sought reimbursement under FSD 64.5. In total the grievor claimed $2,272.20; they were initially approved to be reimbursed $249.77 and were subsequently approved to be reimbursed an additional $1,152.71 due to a re-assessment that was requested by the grievor and Bargaining Agent.
The grievor was informed that in accordance with FSD 64.10, they could retain items recovered from post that had been replaced and receive 50% compensation for said items, or they could receive 100% compensation for items that were donated. The grievor chose the latter option but ended up keeping the items as they were unable to donate them. As a result, the Employer applied the former option and reimbursed the grievor at 50%.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the Employer’s refusal to grant an accountable advance as per FSD 64.5.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative started their presentation by going over the timeline of events. It was noted that on March 18, 2020, the global pandemic was declared and the grievor was instructed to evacuate to Country K. On July 14, 2020, the grievor submitted a partial claim for $1,504.19; only 20 items were submitted in this claim as the system has a limit on the number of attachments. On the same day, $249.17 of the $1,504.19 was approved for reimbursement. On July 23, 2020, the Bargaining Agent initiated informal discussions with the Employer. Following informal discussions, the grievance was filed on August 27, 2020. The first level hearing was scheduled to take place on October 9, 2020. However, on October 7, 2020, the Employer informed the Bargaining Agent that after reconsideration, an additional $1,152.71 would be reimbursed to the grievor. The grievance was then placed in abeyance, and the first level hearing took place on March 17, 2021.
The Bargaining Agent noted that the Employer’s rationale for not approving certain items was because the grievor was in receipt of per diems. It was further noted that the Employer explained that kitchen utensils were not approved as the temporary accommodation was supplied with kitchen utensils, that art supplies were not approved as they are not considered essential items, and that an air purifier was not approved as it was not listed on the grievor’s inventory. The Bargaining Agent referred to wording in the Directive that states the Deputy Head may exercise discretion but noted that they do not believe reasonable discretion was exercised in this case.
The Bargaining Agent explained that as the grievor was on vacation at the time of evacuation, they were unable to pack additional luggage, as instructed by the Employer. It was also noted that although the grievor was in receipt of per diems, the per diems decline over time with the expectation that Employees will prepare their own food during longer-term temporary accommodations. Furthermore, the Bargaining Agent noted that FSD 64.5 does not solely relate to clothing, and that FSD 2 does not define the term “essential items”, which should therefore allow the grievor to determine what they believe to be essential items for their household. Finally, the Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor has yet to be reimbursed at all, and that an accountable advance is requested as a corrective measure.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative began their presentation by noting that on April 28, 2020, Working Group B (WGB) discussed the application of FSD 64.5 in the context of the pandemic and it was decided that the Department would be applying a strict and consistent definition of the term “essential items”, which is why employees were encouraged to bring additional luggage at the expense of the Employer. It was also noted that once the grievance was filed, the Department explored the possibility of approving additional items. The Departmental representative stated that FSD 64 was not intended for situations where such large amounts of people were being evacuated at the same time but recognized that the COVID-19 pandemic was an exceptional situation that had to be closely managed by the Department. Due to this, items such as clothing and electronics were not being approved for reimbursement. The Departmental representative further noted that although the term “essential items” is not defined in FSD 2, the classification of “essential items” rests with the Department. Additionally, the representative explained the reasons why certain items were not approved, which were the same explanations as stated by the Bargaining Agent representative.
As the Department did agree to provide additional reimbursement, the Departmental representative stated they do believe the Employer exercised reasonable discretion. Due to this, the Departmental representative stated they believe the grievor was treated within the intent of FSD 64.5.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee which concluded the grievor had not been treated within the intent of FSD 64.5 - Accountable Advances for Purchase of Essential Household Effects. Given the exceptional and individual circumstances of the grievor an advance ought to have been provided for the replacement of essential household effects. As such, the grievance is partially upheld to the extent that an accountable advance should be provided for the items as requested except for the following items: air purifier, scanner and folding chairs.