Recovery of relocation expenses

The employee grieved the department's refusal to reimburse actual relocation expenses. The employee requested that he receive full and fair reimbursement for all relocation expenses incurred.

In March 2001, the grievor was successful in a competition and the effective date of the appointment was March 5, 2001 which resulted in a relocation from Location X to Location Y. At the time, the grievor was given the option of either the Relocation Directive or the Integrated Relocation Pilot Program. The the Department was advised that the Relocation Directive was chosen. Relocation began on March 13, 2001 which was the date the letter of offer was signed.

On May 21, 2002, the Director Accounting Operations wrote a memorandum to the Acting DG, as a result of on-going issues with the grievor's relocation file. Director Accounting Operations also indicated in his memorandum that since the grievor was not providing the required documentation to substantiate the claim for reimbursement of outstanding costs and given the fact that the grievor's letter of offer was signed over a year ago, Finance would proceed with the closure of the file, if the documentation were not forwarded to them by June 30, 2002.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that one of the prime purposes of the Relocation Directive is 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. Cost was minimized to the Department when the grievor lived in private accommodations (as per section 2.12.2 of the Relocation Directive) for the period of March 13 to June 15, 2001. The Department paid the employee a $420 allowance. As such, for approximately three months, the Department did not have to reimburse the grievor cost of living in a commercial accommodation such as, the cost of $2,400 per month rent incurred under the Residential Tenancy Agreement (Ontario). Therefore, the Department saved almost $2,000 a month for three months and this, in the context of a saturated real estate market.

The Bargaining Agent representative believed that to deny reimbursement of $1,000 per month for the period of August 17 to November 30, 2001 would not serve the purpose of relocating the grievor in the most efficient fashion and with a minimum of detrimental effect, as it would personally cost the grievor $1,000 per month to move to Location Y for the period of August 17 to November 30, 2001. As such, the relocation would not be mutually beneficial to both parties. The Department would be the sole party to benefit.

The employer never disputed the fact that the grievor was not entitled to reimbursement of $1,000 per month for Interim Accommodation. They are of the view that a mortgage existed on the house at Location X. The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that even though the grievor has provided sufficient evidence to prove that there was a line of credit on the house at Location X and not a mortgage, the Department has maintained its view.

The Bargaining Agent representative concluded that the Committee find the grievor to have provided sufficient evidence proving no mortgage existed on the house at Location X and that the Committee also order the Department to reimburse the grievor the $1,000 per month recovered for the period of Interim Accommodation from August 17, 2001 to November 30, 2001.

The Departmental representative outlined the entitlements of the grievor under the Relocation Directive.

• Since the grievor owned a house at Location X when the offer of indeterminate employment was accepted, the grievor was entitled to the TDRA provisions until the closing on the sale of the house at Location X.
• The grievor was entitled to Interim Accommodation once the house was sold at Location X, as provided for in section 6 of the Relocation Directive.
• House hunting trips would have been allowed as provided for in section 2.1, had the grievor not purchased a home prior to the time the benefits were entitled under the Directive. Any such days would have been deducted from Travel Status days as provided for under Interim Accommodation on paragraph 6.4.3 of the Relocation Directive.

The Departmental representative maintained that most expenses claimed by the grievor were paid by the employer and there has always been a will to reimburse any expense with the submission of appropriate documentation.

The grievor has not provided the necessary documentation to demonstrate that the house at Location X was mortgage-free prior to sale. It should also be noted that in an e-mail to the Relocation / Travel Advisor on September 4, 2001, the grievor noted that technically, there was no mortgage as it had been convered into a line of credit.

The Departmental representative concluded that the employer had reimbursed the grievor to the extent possible, based upon the provisions of the Relocation Directive and the documentation provided by the grievor. Refusal to pay specific claims is based either on the failure of the grievor to provide any or sufficient proof of expenses or on the fact that the grievor was not entitled to incur the expense under the Relocation Directive.

The Government Travel Committee could not come to a consensus on the intent of the Travel Directive applied to this situation and, therefore, reached an impasse. The Executive Committee confirmed that an impasse exists.