December 12, 2007
41.4.20
Background
On August 21, 2006, the grievor accepted a position with a department that required him to relocate to a new place of duty. The grievor's letter of offer indicated that the grievor was to start his new position on September 18, 2006 and that he was entitled to relocation benefits in accordance with the NJC Integrated Relocation Directive (IRD), but not to undertake any relocation-related activities prior to his initial consultation with the Relocation Services Coordinator. The grievor however, went ahead with a House Hunting Trip (HHT) from August 29 to September 3, 2006, prior to being contacted by a representative from the Relocation Services Coordinator.
Once in the new place of duty, the grievor was not scheduled to take possession of his new home for an additional month and a half. The grievor did not receive a meal allowance during this interim time period (September 18, 2006 – November 6, 2006).
The employee grieved management's decision to withhold his entitlement under NJC Directive for relocation.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
With regard to the HHT allowances claimed by the grievor, the Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor proceeded with a HHT on August 29, 2006 with the belief that the grievor's relocation had already been approved. In support of this, the Bargaining Agent representative referred to an internal department email dated August 23, 2006, distributed to management, pertaining to the relocation authority of the grievor. The email confirmed that approval was granted to relocate the grievor at the new place of duty on or about September 13, 2006, pending the sale of the grievor's home.
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that between the period of August 21, 2006 (the date on which the grievor accepted the department's letter of offer) and August 29 2006, no representative from the Relocation Services Coordinator contacted the grievor and that finally the grievor, feeling pressured to wrap up affairs prior to commencing the new job, proceeded with the HHT.
The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor should not be penalized because of the lack of action on the part of the department and of the Relocation Services Coordinator. The expenses related to the relocation were incurred after the grievor accepted the job offer with the department.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor asked the current employer for and was granted permission to proceed on the HHT, as both the grievor and the employer were of the view that the August 29 to September 3, 2006 period was the only period available for the HHT.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that a representative from the Relocation Services Coordinator finally contacted the grievor on September 5, 2006 which, considering the grievor had to report to the new place of duty on September 18, 2006, would not have provided sufficient time to complete all tasks with the employer and do the necessary HHT prior to reporting to the new position.
The Bargaining Agent representative claimed that there were no compelling reasons for denying the expenses incurred by the grievor for the HHT. The expenses were legitimate and incurred solely for the purpose of HHT. The grievor acted in good faith being convinced the relocation had already been approved prior to the HHT.
With regard to the meal allowance under TDRA claimed by the grievor, the Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor was informed via email by the Relocation Services Coordinator on October 17, 2006 that the grievor was eligible for the TDRA in accordance with section 8.12.2 a. & b. On the strength of this information, the grievor submitted a claim for meals.
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor paid for an apartment type suite hotel but that is was not equipped with a kitchen. As such, it was necessary to purchase meals.
Based on the above, the Bargaining Agent representative believed that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the IRD and requested that the grievance be granted.
Departmental Presentation
With regard to the HHT allowances claimed by the grievor, based on section 2.2.2 of the IRD, the Departmental representative submitted that in order for the grievor to be eligible for a reimbursement of all expenses under the IRD, the grievor had to have a consultation with the Relocation Services Coordinator prior to proceeding on the HHT.
The Departmental representative maintained that the grievor was given clear instructions in the letter of offer that the grievor could not undertake any relocation related activities prior to an initial consultation with the Relocation Services Coordinator. On that basis, the Departmental representative argued that the grievor did not have proper authorization to incur expenses when the grievor traveled to the new place of duty, as the grievor had not yet been contacted by the Relocation Services Coordinator to authorize the reimbursement of expenses under the IRD.
The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor was referred to the Relocation Services Coordinator, by the Department, on August 31, 2006 and that the Relocation Services Coordinator attempted to contact the grievor to arrange a consultation on September 1, 2006, while the grievor was already away on a HHT.
The Departmental representative was of the opinion that reimbursement for proceeding on the HHT, prior to receiving proper authorization, could only be post authorized with the concurrence of the Project Authority at TBS, as per section 2.1 of the IRD. Since the Project Authority denied the post authorization, the Department could not unilaterally authorize the reimbursement.
With regard to the TDRA claimed by the grievor, the Departmental representative submitted that an employee can avail himself/herself of section 8.12.2 b. if that employee needs to maintain two residences when his/her family stays behind. In this case, the grievor was single at the time, and did not need to maintain two residences. The Departmental representative claimed that the grievor was informed of this interpretation of section 8.12.2.b. on November 7, 2006.
The Departmental representative further submitted that section 7.8, upon which the grievor alternatively relied during the course of the grievance process, only applies to situations where the employee rents his principal residence, which was not the grievor's situation.
Based on the above, the Departmental representative believed that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive and requested that the grievances be denied.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive with regards to his House Hunting Trip, inclusive of travel, in that he was not reimbursed under section 4 of the IRD for expenses incurred after authorization was granted on August 31, 2006.
With regard to section 8.12, the Committee agreed that the grievor was treated within the intent of the IRD, in that the grievor was reimbursed for TDRA from September 18, 2006 to November 6, 2006 and he was not entitled to the reimbursement of 65% of the meal allowance as the grievor did not have dependants and therefore, subsection 8.12.2(b) does not apply.
As such the Executive Committee agreed that the grievance be upheld in part to the extent above.