Relocation Expenses/Compensation

The employee grieved denial of relocation expenses. The grievor sought to be paid relocation expenses/compensation. Management contested the timeliness of the grievance.

The grievor relocated from Location X to Location Y on October 1, 2001. At the time, the employer did not discuss the possibility of reimbursing relocation expenses but when the grievor briefly questioned it, it was advised orally by a staffing assistant that the grievor was not entitled to relocation expenses. Clerical staff was not eligible for relocation expenses pursuant to the Relocation Directive. The grievor's letter of deployment makes no mention of relocation expenses. On February 17, 2003, at the request of the grievor, the union representative raised the question again and was only provided with an official answer from the department on March 13, 2003. The grievance was filed on April 14, 2003.

The Bargaining Agent representative, in dealing with the preliminary issue of timeliness, contends that the above-cited grievance is indeed timely. There were self-explanatory notes, prepared by the grievor, to demonstrate that the grievor was misinformed by the department before, during and after deployment on many occasions and by several different areas of the department including staffing, finance and staff relations. Clerical staff was not entitled to expenses under the Relocation Directive. These notes describe the number of efforts the grievor went to in an attempt to obtain accurate information supported by the applicable references from the Relocation Directive.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the delay in this case was caused by the department, despite the grievor's and union's attempts to obtain a definitive answer from someone within the department. The final official answer was only received on March 13, 2003, and the grievance was filed within the required twenty-five (25) days, on April 14, 2003.

With respect to the merits of the grievance, the Bargaining Agent representative cited paragraph 1.7.4 of the Relocation Directive to argue his case:

Section 1.7 should have been followed. Consequently, the letter of offer contained no such certification.

In conclusion, the Bargaining Agent representative is seeking a decision that the grievor is entitled to claim full relocation expenses and that someone at the department, familiar with the Relocation Directive assist in completing the grievor's claim and process it as expeditiously as possible.

The Departmental representative raised a preliminary objection regarding timeliness.

On October 1, 2001, a Staffing Officer advised the grievor that the grievor was not eligible for relocation expenses. On February 17, 2003, more than 16 months after the grievor was advised, the local union president asked management if the grievor was eligible for relocation expenses. The grievor was notified of management's position on March 27, 2003. On April 17, 2003, the grievor submitted the present grievance.

The Departmental representative maintained that Section 14.1.6 of the NJC By-Laws clearly stipulates that an aggrieved employee shall present the grievance to the first level of the procedure, in the manner prescribed in paragraph 14.1.7, not later than the 25^th day after the date on which the employee is notified orally or in writing or on which the employee first becomes aware of the action or circumstance giving rise to the grievance.

As to the matter of the time limit, the NJC Executive Committee had previously addressed the issue in a similar case. In August 1995, the Committee heard the grievance of an employee requesting relocation costs. In that case, the Committee noted that the grievance was filed on May 27, 1994, and related to a transfer (deployment) which occurred in September 1991. The Committee concluded that the grievance was untimely.

The Departmental representative maintained that the Committee should come to the same conclusion in the present case, as the facts are basically identical. In respect to the timeliness issue, the Committee was also referred to the following PSSRB Decisions: Ouellette, Sittig and Sallenback. In these decisions, the Adjudicators all concluded that they had no jurisdiction because the grievances were all filed outside the prescribed time limit.

Notwithstanding the issue of timeliness, it was maintained that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive. At no time prior, during or after deployment was the grievor led to believe or told that relocation expenses would not be reimbursed nor were any such expenses authorized under the Relocation Directive.

With respect to expenses incurred before having received written authorization, Section 1.1.1 of the Relocation Directive stipulates that the employer shall not be responsible for such expenses, unless and until the relocation is subsequently authorized.

Consequently, the grievor has and is being treated within the intent of the Travel Directive.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded both that the grievance was timely and that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive. The Executive Committee found that the grievor was entitled to relocation as per paragraph 1.7.4 of the Relocation Directive and that the information provided within section 1.7.4 of the Relocation Directive provides sufficient guidance for resolution of this issue. The Committee upheld the grievance.