Relocation Directive – Employee Requested Relocation

Background

The grievor works for Department C, hired on November 6, 2017, to work out of the City F, Province P office. At the time, the grievor resided in City G, Province P and left a position with another department at a City F location to accept the position. Shortly after beginning to work, the grievor expressed frustration with the daily commute to coworkers as well as the Regional Director for the Province P Region, who also lived in City G, Province P.

On May 3, 2019, the grievor sent an email to the new Regional Director, Province P Region as well as the Business Management Officer where they inquired about their eligibility for a moving allowance in order to relocate closer to the office. They explained that during discussions with a former co-worker from another department, they were informed that they may have been entitled to relocation benefits under the NJC Relocation Directive (Directive) at the time of their appointment.

On March 10, 2020, the grievor was advised that the Department would not support the relocation request. The Employer provided several reasons in its response, including that the grievor did not express an interest in relocating at the time of the offer and that the timeframe for requesting relocation assistance is restricted to within one year of appointment under section 2.13 of the Directive. The Employer did indicate there were other options available to the grievor that could be discussed. On April 23, 2020, the grievor filed a grievance.

Grievance

The employee is grieving that the Employer has denied their rights in accordance with Article 41 of the collective agreement and Part XII of the NJC Relocation Directive. The grievance is four-fold: 1. that the Employer should have treated the grievor’s request to relocate as an Employer Requested Relocation; 2. that the request to relocate was never seriously considered as the Regional Director completes the same daily commute, prompting the Employer to exclude relocation consideration from discussions and/or the letter of offer at the time of employment, 3. that the Employer misinterpreted section 2.13 of the Directive and 4. that the Employer failed to fulfill its responsibility of informing the grievor of relocation rights/benefits or lack thereof at the outset.

The grievor asserts that the Relocation Directive is silent on when relocation should be offered and that it is not limited to the time of appointment to a position.

Bargaining Agent Presentation

The Bargaining Agent representative summarized the background of the grievance and indicated that the 2009 version of the NJC Relocation Directive was in effect at all times pertinent to the grievance. The grievor applied through an internal non-advertised appointment process for a full-time indeterminate position with Department C in City F, Province P. They noted the area of selection was all of Province P. They acknowledged that there was no mention of relocation benefits nor any references to geographic limitations or restrictions. The representative remarked that the distance between the grievor’s residence and new place of work was over 70 km and occurred during daytime peak rush hour traffic. After speaking with their former co-worker, the grievor did some research and on May 3, 2019, requested an employee-requested relocation from City G, Province P to City H, Province P. The Bargaining Agent representative indicated the grievor’s request was denied on May 10, 2019, based on section 2.13 of the Directive. The grievor then filed a grievance and did not complete any relocation activities. The Committee clarified that the grievor still has not moved.

The representative reviewed the arguments raised by the Employer in its first-level response dated December 18. 2020, including subsection 2.13.1 of the Relocation Directive, references to subsection 2.1.1 which outlines the Employer’s responsibility, the lack of a specific right to relocation, and the letter of offer’s silence on relocation benefits. They highlighted the reassurance the grievor received that the Employer would continue to consider telework and flexible work arrangements, which would significantly minimize their commuting hardship. They noted the second level response from September 22, 2021, closely followed the language used in the first-level response. The representative indicated the grievor was in discussions with the Employer throughout 2022 to resolve the grievance. They indicated that, following the December 15, 2022 Treasury Board (TBS) announcement of the return to office policy, the grievor was informed that they were no longer willing to consider a full-time telework agreement.

The Bargaining Agent representative argued that the grievor was entitled to full relocation benefits, not only employee-requested benefits, noting the use of the word “shall” in subsection 1.4.2 effectively removes the Employer’s authority to determine whether relocation benefits will be provided. They reviewed subsection 1.4.5, noting the limited criteria. They argued that the Employer did not fulfill its responsibility under subsection 2.1.1 to authorize a relocation for the grievor and facilitate an immediate referral to the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP) noting that a discussion and facilitation of the provision of relocation benefits should have occurred and been included in the letter of offer.

The representative noted the Employer’s attribution of the employee’s responsibility to request relocation at the time of appointment or shortly thereafter and submitted that it is not reasonable to hold an employee accountable for a document that is the exclusive responsibility of the Employer. They also referenced Gagnon v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service of Canada), (2017 FPSLREB 48) where the Board found that subsection 1.4.2 required the Employer to authorize relocation as the grievor was captured by the definition of a relocation.

The Bargaining Agent representative then addressed the time limit, noting that there are no time restrictions or limitations in the Directive which prevent an employee from being offered or requesting relocation when the criteria is met. They argued that the time limit referenced by the Employer representative, section 2.13, only applies to the submission of expenses, and does not affect when an employee may request to be relocated. They further argued that the grievor discussed their discontent with the commute very early in their tenure and was never informed that relocation might have been an option.

Based on the above, the Bargaining Agent representative requested that the grievance be upheld and that the grievor be granted full relocation benefits.

Departmental Presentation

The Departmental representative confirmed that the grievor was appointed to their position at Department C through an internal non-advertised process on November 6, 2017, and that relocation was not discussed at any time during the hiring process. They indicated that the position’s work location was clearly indicated in the grievor’s letter of offer. The grievor requested information on eligibility for moving allowance from the Regional Director on May 3, 2019, citing concerns with the commute and a desire to be closer to the office. They noted this request was made 18 months after the grievor’s appointment to the Department.

The representative indicated that the grievor was advised that their request could not be supported this late because departments and employees are responsible for determining whether relocation will be offered at the time of appointment. They noted this position was issued after reviewing the grievor’s information and in consultation with Human Resources, the Relocation office, and TBS. The representative indicated that the Department was open to discussing and providing options for flexible work arrangements such as telework or having the grievor report to another office to alleviate some of the frustrations of the commute and noted that the grievor refused these suggestions and filed a grievance. They indicated that the grievor is currently teleworking from home 60% of their scheduled work hours, as per Department C policy and the hybrid work model.

The Employer acknowledged that both parties are required to discuss the possibility of relocation and indicated that the management did not do so as several employees in the area choose a similar length and duration of commute rather than pay the high cost of living closer to the office. As a result of this, the representative indicated that management did not think of raising relocation options with the grievor.

The representative further asserted that there is no specific right to relocation and that every situation is examined on a case-by-case basis. They indicated that the grievor’s previous place of work is approximately 22 km from the grievor’s new place of work, and that the grievor was aware of the distances involved. They reiterated that the grievor should have raised relocation considerations at the time of appointment. They reviewed timelines within the Directive, including that the authorization must be in advance and in writing (section 2.1), a one (1) year time limit for reimbursement (subsection 2.13.1) and the employee’s expense claim must be within 90 days of the employee’s arrival at the new place of duty (subsection 2.9.1). They argued that approving such a request so far after the fact would create undesirable costs, set precedents, and also not align with the intent and spirit of the Directive.

The representative reviewed the alternate solutions the Employer offered, noting that the new work location added approximately 25 km to the grievor’s commute. The grievor was offered the opportunity to report to another office which was 30 km away; however, the grievor rejected the offer.

Based on the above, the Employer 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 Directive. The Executive Committee was unable to reach a consensus on this issue. As such, the Executive Committee was at an impasse.