Relocation – Rental Vehicle Expenses

The employee grieved the denial of benefits for the costs of a rental vehicle and/or appropriate transportation while on relocation status. The grievor requested reimbursement of expenses incurred for a rental vehicle and taxis, for the period of July to September 1999, for a total cost of $1,930.00.

In the spring of 1999, the grievor received an offer of employment in another city (Location B) which did not have a public transit system. A resident without a personal vehicle was required to travel by taxi or rent a car. In organizing his move and knowing that his family could not move with him immediately, the grievor sought to arrange for the rental of a vehicle in (Location B). In a message dated April 27, 1999 the grievor was advised by the employer that the Relocation Directive, and more specifically that the Temporary Dual Relocation Assistance (TDRA), did not provide for the payment of the cost of a rental/leased vehicle. The grievor was further advised that he could delay reporting to work until the end of June 1999, thus allowing his child to complete the school year. On April 28, 1999, the grievor notified his future supervisor, that he would wait to see the outcome of the house-hunting trip before making a decision on the offer to delay.

In early May 1999, the grievor's house-hunting trip was unsuccessful, despite looking at housing in a 30km radius. In a letter to management on May 10, 1999, the grievor reported that the market in (Location B) for housing was very limited, expensive, and turnover for suitable homes when available was quick. The grievor also learned that other families were unsuccessful in finding appropriate accommodation in (Location B). Due to these circumstances the grievor was required to look at other alternative housing, i.e. building and short term apartment rental. The grievor requested a second house-hunting trip, during which they would expand their search to a 50-km radius.

The grievor took the second trip in early June 1999. Although still unsuccessful in finding accommodation, contacts with numerous real estate agents and developers within a 50km radius were made. In an attempt to pursue these opportunities in a timely manner to accommodate his family, the grievor again sought permission to rent a car.

In mid-June 1999, the grievor's house (Location A) had not yet been sold. It was decided that the grievor's spouse would remain in it to facilitate the sale of the house, as recommended under clause 2.11.2(b) of the Relocation Directive. The family vehicle was required in (Location A), as the grievor's child required medical monitoring three times a week. The lack of public transportation in (Location B) was severely restricting the grievor's ability to look for a house in the evening or on weekends.

In the grievor's letter of June 18 to management, the grievor requested that the Treasury Board be contacted to seek approval for the rental of a vehicle during the TDRA status. The grievor was advised on June 22, that the request could not/would not be made. In a subsequent conversation with management it was stated that Treasury Board had not been contacted but that they would take the grievor's circumstances under consideration. The grievor rented a vehicle or took taxis, at his own expense, to look for a house.

During this period the grievor was living in a 2- bedroom apartment in an adult building. The grievor's house was sold in September 1999 at a reduced amount. The grievor's family relocated to (Location B) in October. The landlord permitted the family to live in the apartment until they found a house.

”Purpose and Scope” under the Relocation Directive states:

”It is the policy of the government that in any relocation, the aim shall be to relocate the employee in the most efficient fashion that is, at the most reasonable cost to the public yet having a minimum detrimental effect on the transferred employee and family.”

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor's particular circumstances, stress and expense of trying to find suitable accommodation for his family without access to readily accessible transportation, coupled with the hardship of being separated from his family while his wife tried to sell their house and sought weekly medical care for their youngest child, warranted special consideration. Specifically, reimbursement for expenses incurred with regard to rental of car and taxi fare to seek housing which was necessarily outside of (Location B). The grievor incurred $1,430.00 in car rental expenses, $500.00 in taxi fare and personal needs (food, etc.) for a total of $1,930.00

It is the Employer representative's opinion that the grievor was not entitled to claim for reimbursement of costs incurred relating to the rental of a vehicle as per the Relocation Directive, and the Relocation Guide. Clause 1.1 1 of the Relocation Directive specifically states that "If an employee incurs expenses related to a specific relocation before having received written authorization to relocate, the employer shall not be responsible for such expenses, unless and until the relocation is subsequently authorized". No agreement or any prior commitment, verbal or in writing, was made to the grievor to the effect that the department would pay for any costs related to the rental of a vehicle while the he was on Temporary Dual Residence status. To the contrary, the grievor was informed, in writing, on three separate occasions that costs related to the rental of a vehicle were not allowed expenses under the Relocation Directive.

The Department willingly offered to change the grievor's start date to the end of June 1999, to facilitate his relocation and to lessen any hardship on himself or his family. The grievor however, refused this offer, but later claimed that one of the reasons he was seeking special consideration was because of an employer requested start date of May 25, 1999.

The grievor requested that he be given special consideration to be reimbursed at the higher mileage rate referred to in the Relocation Directive, 6.8.1. The grievor believed that the higher rate would not only cover the distance he would have to drive but, due to the fact that the highways in (Location A) were under construction, the higher rate would help defray minor mechanical repairs which might occur. As the distance between the grievor's residence, (Location A) and his new work (location B) were determined to be 1,349 km. The Department arranged transportation for the grievor and his family by air and arranged for the shipping of the grievor's vehicle.

Expenses incurred in the amount of $820 for taxi fare, from June 14, 1999 up to and including October 14, 1999. to facilitate the grievor's daily commute from his temporary residence to the workplace were paid by the Department. Although there is no provision for such payments within the Relocation Directive, Treasury Board had been previously contacted regarding a similar situation and had indicated that the Department should pay these expenses due to the location of housing in the place of work as well as the unavailability of public transportation.

It was noted that while the grievor was on Temporary Dual Residence status, he was required to travel for business reasons. When the grievor was required to travel, the grievor's supervisor permitted the use of a government vehicle to attend to personal business, such as house hunting and other personal needs, as well as work related business.

The Department paid for all allowable expenses under the Relocation Directive; i.e. one house hunting trip in May 1999 as well as a second house hunting trip in June 1999, a visit home to the grievor's family in July 1999, as well as a second visit in November 1999, real estate fees, costs associated with selling the grievor's principal residence, as well as expenses related to the storage of the grievor's furniture for the months of November 1999 to February 2000.

The grievor submitted a request for the reimbursement of $1,061.90 in storage fees for the months of March to June 2000 as well as consideration for an extension of storage fees until July 31, 2000. The employer who also consulted with representatives of the area real estate business in (Location B) reviewed the request. It was apparent, from these consultations, that the housing market in the (Location B) had improved considerably in the last calendar year and as a consequence the grievor's situation would not be considered an "exceptional circumstance" as stated in Section 4.10.2 of the Relocation Directive "Storage of a portion of an employee's effects should be considered only in exceptional circumstances. If the employee selects accommodation which will contain only a portion of the household effects, any storage arrangement for the remainder shall be the employee's responsibility". Consequently, the request for reimbursement of further storage fees was denied.

In conclusion, the employer paid a total of $36,483.76 in eligible relocation expenses for the grievor. Under the general terms of the Relocation Directive, the Responsibilities section states that "It is the responsibility of the employer to reimburse those actual and reasonable relocation expenses, within this directive”. There is no provision under the Directive for the reimbursement of expenses related to the rental/lease of a vehicle. Also, Part II of the Relocation Directive, Relocation Assistance makes no allowance for the payment of costs associated with the rental of a vehicle while the employee is receiving Temporary Dual Residence Assistance. Therefore, in accordance with these sections of the Directive, the employer had no authority to allow the grievor's claim.

The Government Travel Committee reached an impasse on this case and the Executive Committee confirmed that an impasse exists.