Relocation – Temporary Dual Residence

The employee grieved the content and impact of a letter signed by her manager with regards to her relocation. The employee requested that the letter and any reference to the letter be removed from her file; that all mandatory training be scheduled and completed with full expenses covered; upon completion of all mandatory training, a letter of appointment be provided by mutual agreement of all parties, as per letter dated April 15,1997; once the appointment is finalized, living expenses assistance to be provided as per Relocation Directive (article 5.10); all leave because of the letter's contents and its impact be reinstated; all expenses incurred because of the letter and its impact be reimbursed; all penalties associated with the letter and her relocation be dropped and that the grievor be made whole.

The Bargaining Agent representative explained that prior to being interviewed for the position, the grievor was advised that the position was located in Edmonton and that if she were to be appointed to the position, she would be required to relocate to Ottawa. The grievor agreed to the condition of relocation.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor accepted the offer of deployment with the understanding that it was a temporary measure until she had completed all mandatory training as indicated in her retraining agreement attached to the letter of offer and which contained not only the 14 week training in Cornwall, but another 2 year period of field training required in order to acquire the level of knowledge and experience necessary to become competent. Therefore, it was maintained that the offer of deployment was not finalized until all the training would be completed. Reference was made to a meeting between the grievor and her manager on January 6, 1998 during which the grievor was informed that she would be required to pass a final evaluation at a later date regarding her performance in field training and if she should fail, she would be released.

The Bargaining Agent representative raised the Estoppel principle. For one year and a half, the grievor was told that she was on extended travel status and should submit her claims in accordance with the Travel Directive. During all this time, management authorized and approved all of the grievor's travel claims from her residence to her work location under the Travel Directive. At no time was the grievor informed that she was required to be on TDRA and subject to the Relocation Directive. It was further maintained that it was unreasonable for management to abruptly stop payment of travel expenses after they had approved them for one year and a half. It was also quite unreasonable to give the grievor, a mother of 3 school age children, only 2 days to relocate from Edmonton to Ottawa.

The grievor became ill the next day on June 1, 1999 and no longer had the means to relocate or return home as the department would no longer pay for travel expenses. The grievor was flown back home on June 2, 1999, after arrangements were made by her Bargaining Agent and management. The grievor is presently on disability and is expected to return to work on January 2, 2001.

It was contended that the grievor, although being knowledgeable of an eventual relocation to Ottawa, was never authorized to relocate. It is of the opinion that the letter of offer does not constitute an authorization to relocate, that the grievor was never presented with a formal authorization for relocation with specific dates or details, stating the employer's expectations. The Employer did not discuss with the grievor at any time the terms and conditions of reimbursement at the time of authorization to relocate as authorization was never provided to the grievor. The Employer could not deny the grievor entitlement to relocation for the reason that she did not relocate within the period of two years from the time of the effective date of her deployment (December 8, 1997).

The Departmental representative maintained that the grievor erroneously anticipated that costs for travel to work assignments on board ships would include travel costs from her residence in Edmonton to her work location in Ottawa. Public Servants are not normally compensated for travel from their residence to their work place area.

As defined in the Relocation Directive, an authorized relocation can not take place until the grievor contacts and discusses arrangements with the Regional Relocation Clerk, as provided for in the letter of deployment. Authorization to relocate would follow that process. To date, the grievor has not indicated an interest in relocating, that the requirement for her to report to Ottawa is so negligible (approximately 37 days a year), that it hardly justifies the costs of a relocation and the detrimental effect of relocating her family. In fact, the Departmental Liaison Officer, in her 2^nd level reply to this grievance, explained to the grievor that she would not necessarily have to relocate.

Furthermore, the Department's position is that a reasonable period of time has elapsed since the offer of deployment in which the grievor could have expressed her intent to relocate. For this reason, the Departmental representative believed that should the grievor opt to relocate at some future date, the Employee Requested provisions of the Relocation Directive would apply.

The Departmental representative acknowledged that the letter of May 31, 1999 wrongly referred to the Relocation Directive and the TDRA, that concerns stem from the fact that management continued to fund travel costs. It was the Department's view that travel costs to and from work assignments on board ships should have been based on travel to and from the HQ area of the position.

After what was considered a reasonable period for the grievor to decide upon relocation, management was attempting to convey to the grievor that the travel expenses had become exorbitant and that it was not intended that management would assume these costs indefinitely.

The appointment of the grievor was finalized with a letter of offer dated December 3, 1997 which the grievor accepted on December 5, 1997.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee report, which concluded that that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive. The Committee agreed that this case is an Employer's request for relocation and that the grievor should be entitled to benefits from all the terms and conditions of the Relocation Directive. Furthermore, a reasonable window to conclude the relocation should be provided to the grievor and it should coincide with a normal break of school term i.e.: if the grievor returns to work as expected, on January 2, 2001, the reasonable period of entitlement left would be until July 31, 2001. The Committee urged the parties to communicate clearly and thoroughly in carrying out the relocation as the Committee believed that a breakdown of communication has lead to the grievance.

The grievance was upheld.