Relocation - Expenses

The grievor sought payment of full amounts of relocation expenses claimed. Out of the twelve issues for which the grievor sought redress, issues A, B, G, H, I, J, K, L remained outstanding:

A. Employer-requested rate for trip taken on April 2, 1995 to new location to begin first day in the new position;

B. Employer-requested rate while travelling on April 3, 1995 to view apartment that was to be occupied during TDRA;

G. Full TDRA rather than pro-rated TDRA for April 20-23, 1995 while on a trip home;

H. Full TDRA meal allowance for May 14-19, 1995;

I. CMHC Application Fee;

J. Provincial Sales Tax on the CMHC insurance premium;

K. Mortgage Insurance Premium; and

L. Municipal Water Assessment Tax.

Issues A & B: The grievor sought the employer-requested rate for trips taken to the new location to begin his first day in the new position and to view the apartment that was to be occupied during TDRA.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that since the relocation was a result of a workforce adjustment situation, the grievor should be reimbursed the employer-requested rate. The grievor had provided evidence of actual transportation costs incurred as a result of the use of his personal vehicle. The Bargaining Agent maintained that the grievor met the criteria set out in article 2.6.1 of the Relocation directive in that using his private vehicle was the least costly for the Department.

The Departmental representative stated that the grievor was considered to be on relocation status at the time the travel occurred and was consequently entitled to be reimbursed at the employee-requested rate in accordance with article 2.6.1 of the Relocation directive.

Issue G: The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor was still considered in TDRA when he returned home on an approved trip over a long weekend. He claimed four days at the "daily meal allowance" rate. The Department pro-rated the grievor's TDRA meal allowance for April 20 and 23; these two days were reduced by $8.86 and $6.58 respectively. In essence, the Department approved a total of three days of full TDRA ($46.32). A one day TDRA meal allowance claim of $15.44 (Thursday's dinner, and Sunday's breakfast and lunch) was denied.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that an employee is entitled to a daily meal allowance equal to 65 per cent of the current meal allowance for dinner in accordance with article 2.12.6.

The Departmental representative stated that the grievor was entitled to a daily meal allowance equal to 65% of the current meal allowance for dinner. As this claim for meal allowances included a period of travel home over a long weekend, his dinner on Thursday, April 20, and his breakfast and lunch on Sunday April 23 were not paid. Based on this required adjustment, his original claim for a four day meal allowance for the period of April 18 to 23 was reduced to a three day allowance.

Issue H: The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor was still considered in TDRA when he went home on a Sunday and returned to his new work location on the Friday. He submitted a claim for six days at the "daily meal allowance" rate. The Department pro-rated the grievor's TDRA allowance for April 14 and 19; these were reduced by $8.86 and $6.58 respectively.

The representative noted that in Section 2.12.6, there is a "daily meal allowance" rate which is equal to 65% of the current meal allowance for dinner. He therefore maintained that once an employee is covered by the "daily meal allowance", he receives this allowance for any day or part of any day that he is at his place of duty. There is no authority in the Travel directive to pro-rate allowances.

The Departmental representative noted that this claim was for meals during a house hunting trip. The Departmental representative stated that the grievor was entitled to a daily meal allowance equal to 65% of the current meal allowance for dinner. His meal allowance was therefore reduced for breakfast and lunch on Sunday, May 14 as well as for dinner on Friday, May 19. Based on this required adjustment, the original claim for a six day meal allowance was reduced to a five day allowance.

Issues I, J & K: The Bargaining Agent representative stated that in order to secure a mortgage, the grievor was required to obtain Mortgage Insurance which included an application fee and taxes on the insurance. The representative maintained that these were necessary to provide clear title to the property, as per 3.8.1(c). He maintained that in accordance with article 3.8.1 of the relocation directive, once the conditions set out in article 3.7.1 are met, the listed expenses will be reimbursed. As well, the Relocation directive is contradictory in that article 3.7.3 specifies that an employee does not have to be a homeowner at the former place of duty to be able to claim expenses relating the purchase of a home at the new place of duty while, under 3.8.7, being a former homeowner is a requirement.

The Departmental representative maintained that the expenses were not reimbursable as he was not a homeowner at the former place of duty. He maintained that article 3.8.7 superceded 3.7.3.

Issue L: The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor submitted a claim for reimbursement of municipal water taxes levied on a property that he had purchased. In accordance with the agreement of purchase and sale, the grievor had to absorb the cost of the municipal water assessment tax which totalled $3,500. Since he did not have the funds, the grievor and the vendor agreed that the vendor would pay the water tax while the grievor would increase the purchase price accordingly. The Bargaining Agent maintained that the expense is provided for under section 3.8.1(b).

The Departmental representative argued that the Agreement of Purchase stated that "The vendor further agrees to pay in full to the .. Township, the special local improvement municipal water assessment on or before closing at a maximum of $3,495". In accordance with 3.9.1 of the Relocation directive, expenses incurred regarding adjustments on closing are not essential to establishing clear title to the property. It was the Department's position that the grievor was treated within the intent of the directive.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Government Travel Committee that the grievor was treated within the intent of article 6.8.3 of the Relocation directive when he was reimbursed for mileage at the employee-requested rate. Consequently, the Committee agreed that issues A and B of the grievance be denied.

The Executive Committee agreed that under the provisions of TDRA, there are no conditions under which a return trip home is provided for at government expense. However, the Committee agreed that while under TDRA, an individual is entitled to a daily allowance equal to 65% of the current meal allowance for dinner for each day he or she is separated from the family. The Executive Committee also agreed that the directive does not provide for the pro-rating of this daily allowance. Consequently, the Committee agreed that the grievor was not treated within the intent of article 2.12.6 of the Relocation directive and that issue G of the grievance be upheld.

The Executive Committee agreed that under the provisions of TDRA, there are no conditions under which a return trip home is provided for at government expense. However, the Committee agreed that while under TDRA, an individual is entitled to a daily allowance equal to 65% of the current meal allowance for dinner for each day he or she is separated from the family. The Committee was also of the view that the directive does not provide for the pro-rating of this daily allowance. Consequently, the Executive Committee agreed that the grievor was not treated within the intent of article 2.12.6 of the Relocation directive and that issue H of the grievance be upheld.

The Executive Committee agreed that the grievor was not treated within the intent of article 3.8.1(c) of the Relocation directive with respect to the CMHC application fee as it was an expense incurred to acquire a first mortgage. It was therefore agreed that issue I of the grievance be upheld.

As to the Provincial Sales Tax and the Mortgage Insurance Fee, the Executive Committee agreed that the grievor was treated within the intent of article 3.8.7 of the Relocation directive since he had not been a homeowner at the former place of duty. It was therefore agreed that issues J and K of the grievance be denied.

The Executive Committee agreed that the grievor was treated within the intent of article 3.9.1 as municipal taxes are not reimbursable expenses. Consequently, the Committee agreed that issue L of the grievance be denied.