Relocation - Costs

The employee grieved management's failure to mention the NJC Relocation Directive, or anything related to it, prior to her departure for an assignment in another city. The grievor requested to be fully reimbursed, as stipulated in the Relocation Directive, for any expenses relating to the work assignment the grievor performed at the new work unit.

The grievor, an indeterminate employee, initiated a request in May 1997 for a work assignment in location 'X'. Management accepted her request. Arrangements were made to place her on assignment for a period of 6 months, from August 5, 1997 to January 31, 1998. The grievor subsequently requested a prolongation and remained on assignment in location 'X' until April 5, 1998. The grievor was advised by her manager and the Civilian Personnel Officer (CPO) that the Department was not prepared to pay any costs associated to her temporary relocation.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the union was of the opinion that the grievor was misinformed on several fronts and believed that relocation costs would be covered by the Department.

The representative noted that in March 1994, the grievor was verbally notified that her position was to be deleted. In April 1995, she advised the CPO that she would consider employment in another city. From April 1995 to July 1997, without any assistance from the CPO, the grievor found and worked in 8 positions on a temporary basis.

In May 1997, the grievor asked the CPO why she had not received a "surplus" or "affected" letter. The grievor was informed that it was to her advantage not to be affected on paper.

In June 1997, the CPO contacted the grievor to see if she was still interested in relocating to another city. The CPO gave her contact information for a possible position in location 'X'. On July 10, 1997, the grievor and her union representative met the CPO to query the assignment and the relocation expenses. Both believed that this assignment would lead to an indeterminate position, which included relocation costs. The representative submitted that this was the only reason the grievor signed the assignment document.

The Bargaining Agent representative believed that the CPO should have assisted and guided the grievor in all her benefits and rights, in order for her to make a well-informed decision. Further, the grievor, in good faith, expected relocation costs to be covered, "down the road", and that the grievor would ultimately be offered an indeterminate position in location 'X'.

In closing, the representative stated that no employee would have accepted a temporary assignment without relocation costs - especially an employee in a lower paying position. Therefore, the grievance should be allowed.

The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor was explicitly told on more than one occasion that management would accept her request for an assignment in location 'X' on the condition that there were no costs associated to her temporary relocation. There exist two (2) assignment agreements that the grievor freely signed on July 10 and July 16, 1997. When she signed the agreements, she was perfectly aware that she could not claim any costs associated to her assignment. Due to management's clarity she did not require an in-depth knowledge of the relocation Directive to understand that management was not willing to cover any costs associated to her temporary relocation.

It is the Department's opinion, that all parties entered willingly into the assignment agreements and that it had been clearly established with the grievor that no relocation costs would be associated to this assignment. It is also the Department's opinion that should the grievor have had the intent of requesting temporary relocation costs, such a request should have been made by her prior to her signing the agreements in July 1997.

The representative asked the committee to consider certain sections of the Relocation Directive, namely section 1.7.1 - Employee-requested relocation, which is defined as "...a relocation resulting from a formal request made by an employee for compassionate or other personal reasons and for which the costs are negotiated." According to section 1.7.2 of the Directive when an employee requests relocation, "any assistance shall be at the discretion of the delegated Department al manager."

In conclusion, the Departmental representative stated that it is clear that the Relocation Directive allows management to use discretion as to the payment of costs associated to a temporary relocation, and therefore, allows management to set such conditions. It is also clear that the parties were in agreement with this condition, and are bound by their signed agreement. Furthermore, the grievor was clearly made aware, prior to her assignment, that management would accept her assignment request under the condition that there be no costs associated to her relocation.

It was noted that on January 17, 2000 the Executive committee had referred the grievance back to the working committee to deal with the matter grieved under the Travel Directive. It was determined that the grievor had not been declared surplus during the period covered by the grievance.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee report which concluded that the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive (article 1.7) - Employee-requested relocation. It was noted that the individual requested the assignment and signed 2 agreements (July 10 and 16, 1997) which laid out the conditions under which the assignment would be governed. The July 10 agreement stated that no relocation costs had been approved while the July 16 agreement noted that no expenses associated with relocation would be paid.

The grievance was denied.