Recovery of Relocation Expenses

Three employees grieved the recovery of relocation expenses by the employer. Grievor A is requesting that no recovery action be undertaken, and that any monies that have been recovered be returned to him with interest. Grievors B and C are simply requesting that no recovery action by undertaken.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated the grievors had made efforts to resolve this matter informally within the Department. The services of the Departmental Ombudsman were used and a meeting with the ADM Operations occurred. She noted that the grievor's were advised by the Department that, after reviewing the issues raised, that the decision-making process had been flawed and that, in general, the Directive had not been applied consistently. A committee was formed to consider the procedures that should be applied under this directive in future.

The representative stated that the grievors do not dispute that they were advised in writing that they would be required to pay a portion of their relocation costs. They were not made aware of the extent of those costs however. They did not raise the issue formally at that time because in all cases they were focused on returning to Ottawa. They also had concerns that the amount payable under the pro-rata formula could be increased if they raised concerns about the recovery action.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the Directive is clear, in that requiring an employee to pay a portion of the relocation costs is at the discretion of the employer. The exercise of that discretion is governed by the instruction under 15.36 (a). The instruction indicates that partial payment should only be required where:

• Termination of posting occurs exclusively because of the personal wishes of the employee.

Partial payment should not be required when:

• There are circumstances beyond the employee's control;
• The situation can be attributed wholly or in part to the employer.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that all three of these criteria apply in the situation of the three grievors. She noted that the intent of the Directive is clear from the instruction – this provision is designed to discourage frivolous terminations based on the whims of an employee. In all three cases, the officers did not make the decision to request an early termination lightly and they waited for the normal posting cycle to return to Ottawa.

The Departmental representative stated that the Department was satisfied that in all 3 cases the circumstances that lead to the grievors requests for early termination of their postings were not attributable to the employer. The employer recognized that spousal employment may be more challenging in other countries. However, as much as the employer may try to assist, the employer does not have the responsibility to secure employment for spouses nor is the employer responsible for the consequences related to the lack of employment opportunities for spouses or lost of spousal employment. The employer also recognized that changing working conditions are part of the work environment of the Foreign Service.

It was submitted that the FSD that is applicable in these grievances was used in part as a deterrent to capricious early termination of postings. However, the employer does consider, on a case by case basis, taking on a share of the employee portion of relocation costs for compassionate reasons and to lessen the financial impact on the employee. Also considered is whether the employee is on a cross-posting, and if the employee has terminated previous assignments early. In each of the cases being considered here, the employer agreed to split the employee share of the costs.

In conclusion, the Departmental representative stated the employer is satisfied, for all of the above reasons that the circumstances surrounding the early termination of the grievors postings are not attributable to it. Rather, they were by personal choice of the grievors. Therefore, the Department is of the opinion that the grievors have been treated within the intent of the Foreign Service Directives.

The Executive Committee considered the Foreign Service Directives Committee report and concluded that the Committee could come to no agreement as to the intent of the Directive. The Executive Committee confirmed that an impasse exists.