Relocation - Authorized Expenses

The grievor sought relocation and travel costs relating to his move from his Montreal residence to Toronto to participate in a training program.

The grievor was a former trainee who had maintained a permanent residence in Montreal. After being unsuccessful in gaining admission to the Quebec program, the grievor was informed by the Department that he required an Ontario address to be eligible to apply for employment opportunities in the Ontario region. The grievor provided his sister's address in Scarborough on his application form. The grievor was subsequently offered a trainee position in Toronto.

The Bargaining Agent representative advised that at no time did the grievor state that he was living at the address in Scarborough. The grievor applied to the Ontario program in May 1994. It is maintained that the grievor followed the Department's advise to circumvent its own geographic barrier to potential recruits.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the Department was well aware that the grievor had a Montreal residence since his letter of offer for training was sent to that address. In addition, the grievor's letter of offer stated that "You are authorized relocation expenses in accordance with the Relocation Directive." The Department never sent an amended letter of offer and his Quebec address was included in a variety of letters he received from the Department. Even after he reported for work in Toronto, correspondence continued to be addressed to his Quebec residence.

Since the grievor's letter of offer stated that relocation costs during his training period would be reimbursed, the grievor stayed in a Toronto hotel for approximately 19 days (February 18 to March 3) and also rented a car for that period. The grievor provided management with receipts for his expenses totalling $2,300. On February 19, 1996, the grievor was informed by management that his request for reimbursement was denied.

The Bargaining Agent representative pointed out that the Department sent the grievor to Toronto for a 1 month orientation and provided full travel expenses from his Montreal address. His traveling costs for training in Cornwall were reimbursed from his Montreal address and paid for the grievor's plane fare from Montreal to Toronto and cab fare to assist him in establishing a residence in Toronto.

It is believed that the general intent of the Relocation Directive is to assist employees with their work related relocation and travel expenses and that geography should have no bearing on travel claims if the employer knowingly encourages a trainee to take on training related travel costs.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor is entitled to full reimbursement in accordance with the Travel and Relocation Directives for expenses he incurred while training for the Toronto position.

The Departmental representative advised that while still in training, the grievor and other students were informed by the manager, that they would only be entitled to receive relocation benefits based on the address they provided when given their offer to train, in accordance with regional policy. Since the grievor's address was listed in Scarborough and he was posted in Toronto, he was advised that he would not be eligible for relocation benefits.

The representative explained that the grievor graduated from the Training Institute and was offered a trainee position in Toronto. The letter of offer was a standard letter given to all potential trainees which stated that he was authorized relocation expenses in accordance with the Relocation Directive but that he must not enter any contractual arrangements before discussing his entitlements with the manager. The Montreal address was used in error. The grievor was informed in February 1996 that he was denied relocation benefits to move from Montreal to Toronto but that he was eligible for them from Cornwall. The grievor did not wish to pursue this option. It was stated that management then agreed to pay for the grievor's flight from Montreal to Toronto, in addition to cab fare.

The Department denied reimbursement of relocation costs on the basis that the grievor was advised by the manager in February 1996 that he was not eligible for relocation benefits because the address he had given when offered training was in Scarborough. It is maintained that the Relocation Directive clearly states that in circumstances such as the grievor's relocation assistance is granted at the discretion of the Employer and that the Travel Directive states that all travel expenses must be pre-authorized.

The representative stated that before 1991, relocation assistance was not provided by the department to appointees on their initial posting in the Ontario Region. Regional policy has subsequently changed to allow relocation assistance to trainees based on the address they listed when given the offer to train, to ensure consistency. The employees are reimbursed the costs associated with the movement of their personal effects, mileage to their first posting and interim accommodation.

The representative explained that some applicants from outside the province like the grievor, listed an Ontario address, without which they would have not been able to qualify for entry into the program in the Ontario region. Before they graduated from the program students were clearly told that any relocation assistance they would request as public service appointees would be considered on the basis of this address.

The Departmental representative stated that the manager informed the grievor before and after his appointment that he was not entitled to relocation assistance from Montreal because the address from which he had been selected was in Scarborough in the Toronto area. When questioned by the Committee members, it was confirmed that the letter of offer had not been amended nor was the grievor advised in writting that he was not entitled to relocation expenses.

The representative maintained that the grievor was not entitled to benefits under the Relocation and Travel Directives.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee report which concluded that the grievor had not been treated within the intent of the Relocation Directive. Entitlements must be consistent in the application of the Relocation and Travel Directives as they apply to the initial appointment of trainees.

The grievance was upheld.