Short Term Relocation

The grievor contested the failure of the employer to grant reimbursement of relocation and travel expenses during a special developmental assignment outside his headquarters area. The grievor requested "reasonable reimbursement of expenses" in respect of the short-term relocation as well as travel status expenses.

The grievor was on assignment from Location X to Location Y as a participant in a special developmental program for the period December 16, 1996 to September 26, 1997 (approx. 9 ½ months). After turning down two earlier offers of assignments which the grievor considered inadequate under this program within his headquarters area (Location X), the grievor was assigned to a location outside of the headquarters area (Location Y). The grievor was initially denied coverage under the Relocation Directive because management had no budgeted funds for relocation. Management then determined that the assignment was not subject to short-term relocation assistance under the Relocation Directive nor subject to the Travel Directive. The grievor felt aggrieved after becoming aware that other participants in the same program had received benefits under relocation and/or travel.

The departmental representative argued in written submissions prior to the hearing that the grievance was not submitted on a timely basis. At the hearing, the representative confirmed that this remained its position. The representative of the bargaining agent presented oral arguments in reply to this allegation at the hearing and tabled documents in support of his contention that the grievance was timely. The representative of the employer summarized the basis of her position to the contrary.

The Committee considered the presentations made by the parties and reached consensus that the grievance should be considered timely. There were several dates that might be appropriately considered the date on which the grievor became aware of the circumstances giving rise to the grievance in this case. Committee members concluded that these "anchor dates" indicated that the employee submitted the grievance within twenty-five working days of the date on which he could reasonably have expected to have been aware of the circumstances giving rise to the grievance.

The Bargaining Agent representative presented background information on the special assignment program to which the grievor had applied, and been accepted in 1996. The primary purpose of the program was to provide special developmental opportunities to allow an employee to gain new skills and experience in order to become qualified for promotional opportunities. The grievor identified the skills and experience he needed to acquire, and judged assignment opportunities that arose against these elements. Two assignments within the employee's home community offered by the employer failed to provide these elements and the development opportunity contemplated by the program, and were consequently refused by the grievor. The grievor did find a suitable assignment which met his expectations and the purpose of the program, but this assignment required relocation. The employer accepted the assignment but informed the employee that there was no money available to provide relocation support.

The grievor subsequently learned, shortly after proceeding on relocation, that new support monies had in fact been found by the employer for the program, and that other relocating participants in the program had benefited from this support. Continued denial of support to the grievor was justified by the employer on the basis that the grievor had refused two suitable assignments within his home community, and that his relocation consequently was "an employee-requested relocation" that did not fall within newly established discretionary criteria for support.

The employer's refusal to provide support could only be viewed as unreasonable and unfair given the evidence that other relocating employees had been supported when monies became available.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that his argument in support of the grievor was not linked to a specific provision of the Relocation Directive. Rather, the employer had violated the underlying intent of the Directive by treating the grievor's relocation differently from the way it approached other employees in the assignment program. The grievor's assignment was consistent with the requirements of the program and fell within the bounds of the criteria for support established by the employer. Fairness demands treatment consistent with other employees.

The Departmental representative opened her presentation by stating that the essential issue in dispute is not whether the assignments offered to the grievor within his home community met his requirements or those of the program (although the employer clearly contends that these were appropriate assignments). The issue is whether or not the employer contravened the relevant provisions of the Relocation Directive:

It was the department's position that the grievor did have opportunities within his home community to pursue an assignment which met the requirements of the program. Having declined these opportunities, the employee's decision to pursue an assignment requiring relocation clearly makes this "an employee-requested assignment" within the bounds of section 1.7.1. The grievor was clearly informed at the time that there would be no support and decided nonetheless to relocate.

Section 1.7.2 confers discretion on the employer to provide relocation support, or not, in the case of an employee-requested move. When new monies became available in late 1996, the employer carefully established criteria governing the exercise of its discretion under section 1.7.2. These criteria were applied equitably to all employees then participating in the program, including the grievor whose case was reconsidered. The grievor fell outside the criterion for support established by the employer and was so informed.

Noting that the grievance also alleged an entitlement to travel expenses under the Travel Directive, the representative of the department reiterated the employer's contention that the relocation in question exceeded four months. In cases of short-term relocation beyond four months, the relevant provisions of the Travel Directive (then in effect) do not apply.

The Government Travel Committee could not reach consensus on whether the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive and the Travel Directive. After lengthy debate, an impasse was declared.

The Executive Committee considered the Government Travel Committee report. The Committee could not reach consensus on whether the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive and the Travel Directive. Therefore, an impasse was declared.