December 1, 1997
21.4.614
The grievor claimed a mortgage interest differential payment for the difference in the interest rates between the home in Ottawa and the one in Penticton.
The grievor accepted a 3-year assignment in Ottawa effective October 1, 1993 to October 2, 1996. He rented out his house in Penticton and purchased a home in Ottawa with a 5.5% mortgage rate. The grievor was advised on May 4, 1995 that his assignment would be terminated on September 29, 1995 due to operational requirements.
In July 1995, the grievor renewed the mortgage on his Penticton property for three years with a 7.75% mortgage rate. On October 2, 1995 he returned to Penticton and moved into his home. He subsequently sold the home in Ottawa.
The Executive Committee agreed the grievor did not meet the conditions set out in articles 3.7.1 and 3.14.2 of the Relocation directive. In order to qualify for reimbursement for mortgage interest differential, an employee must have purchased a house at the new place of duty. The grievor, in this case, did not purchase a house when he moved back to Penticton but rather took occupancy of the house he had been renting out while on assignment in Ottawa.
The grievance was denied.