January 31, 2024
41.4.145
Background
The grievor was hired in City B, Province P, on November 5, 2018. While participating in training, the grievor indicated their interest in being deployed to other locations, citing proximity to family, childcare concerns, and career opportunities for their spouse as reasons for the requests, both dated December 18, 2020. The grievor’s requests were declined on December 22, 2020, by their supervisor due to the grievor’s ongoing training, which was expected to be completed by September 2021, and that the City B location was understaffed. After completing the training, the grievor submitted a new request for deployment form on December 7, 2021, which was supported by their supervisor.
On August 16, 2022, the grievor indicated via email that they had applied for a known vacancy in City C, Province R, for which they received and accepted an offer verbally. The grievor outlined their arguments in that email why they believed the relocation should be considered employer-requested. On October 26, 2022, the grievor received a letter of offer (LOO) for the position in City C, Province R, effective December 8, 2022, which indicated the relocation would be considered employee-requested. The grievor signed the LOO on October 27, 2022, after adding handwritten notes reiterating their argument for the relocation to be treated as employer-requested. The grievor was advised that no relocation file would be opened until the grievor acknowledged the relocation as employee-requested, as the hand-written notation rendered the LOO inadmissible. On October 30, 2022, the grievor provided an unmodified LOO with their signature.
The grievor filed a grievance on November 14, 2022. The grievor moved from City B, Province P, to City D, Province R on December 3 and 4, 2022.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the employer’s decision, contrary to the intent and the provisions of the NJC Relocation Directive, which is also represented by Article 7 of their collective agreement. The grievor relies on all relevant provisions of their collective agreement, NJC and Employer policies, directives and guidelines, as well as applicable legislation and regulations.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative reviewed the grievor’s requests for deployment from 2020 and 2021, noting that the relocation took place approximately two (2) years after the first request and argued that it must have been a normal staffing action due to the amount of time that passed between the request and the relocation. They argued that the grievor was deployed in turn after more senior employees were deployed and therefore it was not an accommodation of the grievor’s personal considerations. Additionally, they indicated that once the grievor was informed they would be deployed, the date of the deployment remained constant. They further argued that since there was no discussion around the grievor’s personal circumstances, the relocation could not have been on compassionate or personal grounds.
The Bargaining Agent representative also argued that the certification was empty, that there were no facts to back up the certification, and that the grievor was being discriminated against based upon their family status, alleging that had it not been for the grievor having a family, the grievor would have been compensated according to an employer-requested relocation. They indicated that the grievor clarified on multiple occasions their belief that the relocation should have been employer-requested, going to the extent of including a note on their letter of offer to that effect, but that the manager insisted upon a clean copy.
They further argued that there was a need for the grievor in City C, otherwise there would have been a discussion on the grievor’s start date. They noted the start date in City C was inconvenient for the grievor as it only allowed four (4) weeks of time to relocate from when the letter of offer was signed, which led to a stressful period for the grievor and their family. The representative asserted that the only reason for the grievor to receive an employee-requested relocation instead of an employer-requested relocation was due to costs savings which is not allowed under subsection 12.1.1 of the Directive.
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 Employer representative reviewed the grievor’s deployment requests highlighting their reasons listed as being for employment opportunities for their spouse as well as due to the isolation and lack of resources in City B. They highlighted the statement of the manager supporting the deployment even though it would put the detachment in a difficult position due to understaffing, noting the importance of placing people in the location they wish. They reviewed the multiple discussions between the grievor and managers around the relocation being employee-requested rather than employer-requested.
The representative explained that the positions in City C would not have been filled for some time as the detachment was able to handle its workload with current staff, and therefore there was no pressing departmental need to move the grievor to that location. They noted that there are vacant positions in many locations, however that not all vacant positions were being staffed. They advised that the department determines whether the relocation is employee- or employer-requested based upon many factors, including whether the manager is actively looking to staff an appropriately comparable position in the location that was identified. In the grievor’s situation, the manager was not looking to staff a position in City C.
The Employer representative argued that the Directive was respected. The grievor was granted an employee-requested relocation because the grievor asked to relocate and there was a vacant position the Department could move the grievor into. 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 agreed the grievor was treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive. As such, the grievance is denied.
Notwithstanding, the Executive Committee recommends that the Department review the form used for all deployment requests and consider adding a check box or other method for employees to specify whether they are requesting an employee-requested relocation on compassionate/personal grounds or for other reasons at the outset of the process.