July 3, 2024
41.4.149
Background
The grievor was deployed from the City A, Province B to Province C with a start date of May 30, 2016. Prior to the letter of offer (LOO) being drafted regarding their deployment, the grievor went to City D, Province C for seven (7) days and six (6) nights on a house hunting trip (HHT). The grievor then flew back to City D to sign paperwork and complete an inspection on the home that they chose to purchase.
Once they received and signed their letter of offer on April 28, 2016, the grievor listed their house in Province B for sale and then moved to their new house in early May. In July 2016, the grievor inquired what was owed for relocating; it was explained that for relocation expenses to be reimbursed the grievor needed to be registered with the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP) before incurring the costs.
The Department referred the grievor to their signed letter of offer, which outlined that the Department agreed to provide employee-requested relocation assistance and noted that the grievor was required to contact Finance within 20 working days following the effective date of the offer. While the grievor signed the letter of offer in April 2016, they had not communicated with the Departmental Relocation Coordinator until July 26, 2016.
The grievor noted that the grievor's vehicle was stolen after their arrival in Province C on May 13, 2016, and that the pertinent paperwork and receipts were inside when it was stolen. The Department submitted a business case on behalf of the grievor to the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), requesting an exception to the relocation timelines; however, it was denied on November 6, 2017. The business case noted that the grievor was never registered with the CRSP. The grievance was filed on December 18, 2017.
The Department submitted a business case on behalf of the grievor to the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), requesting an exception to the relocation timelines; however, it was denied on November 6, 2017. The grievance was filed on December 18, 2017.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the denial of their relocation entitlement as per the NJC Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative reviewed the timelines of the grievor’s deployment. They indicated that the grievor and management had discussions in February 2016 and then the grievor heard nothing, even though they requested information and received no advice or warnings until April 2016. By this point, the grievor had already undertaken two (2) house hunting trips and purchased a house.
Furthermore, the representative indicated that this was the grievor’s first move with the government and they were not familiar with the process. They further clarified that the grievor knew that Finance was aware of the grievor’s intent to move as they had been copied on communications. Additionally, in an email on June 2, the grievor indicated that they had communicated with them the day prior.
The Bargaining Agent representative argued that the Department failed in its duty to inform its employee of the process. Instead, it left the grievor to wonder for three (3) months from February until the end of April.
Nor did the Department advise the grievor during that time not to undertake any relocation expenses as they may not be reimbursed, even though they reached out several times for guidance. They purported that the Department failed repeatedly to provide the grievor with key information they required to make informed choices in a timely manner.
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that there is a letter of understanding for deployments between the Department and the Bargaining Agent, but that this document addresses the duration of deployments and similar commitments rather than the process for relocation when deploying. Furthermore, in response to the Departmental representative’s assertion of the requirement for receipts, they argued that this was never mentioned during either first or second level response as an issue and that they would work with the grievor to obtain copies of the receipts.
The Bargaining Agent representative concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive, nor its principles and requested that the Committee uphold the grievance.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative clarified that the question before the Committee is two-fold: 1) was the grievor entitled to reimbursement of their expenses, and 2) if so, what the amounts may be, in light of the theft of the grievor’s vehicle.
They further clarified that the grievor was not offered a deployment until April 28, 2016, as the person with whom the grievor discussed the deployment in February did not have the delegated authority to officially offer a position or authorize deployment or relocation. They argued that the actions undertaken by the grievor pre-date the offer of a position and therefore could not have been authorized, and that the Department has no discretion within the Directive to reimburse the grievor for their personal decisions in anticipation of a deployment.
The Departmental representative argued that the grievor was responsible to familiarize themselves with the process and should have thus known that the costs being incurred would not be reimbursable. They asserted that the grievor could also have sought assistance from the Bargaining Agent for guidance in this matter but did not. They also advanced that the grievor was negligent for keeping their receipts in their vehicle which ended up being stolen with the receipts still inside. Due to the grievor not having access to the receipts, the Department further asserted that they could not be expected to pay the grievor without confirming the expenditure amounts even if the Committee finds that the Department is partially responsible for the grievor’s actions.
The Committee asked about Departmental service standards during deployments, such as how long between the discussions and the issuing of the letter of offer is allowed. The Departmental representative indicated that there are no time frames provided either in the collective agreement or the letter of understanding.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee reviewed the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive. As such, the grievance was denied.