Grievance Case Summary - G-240-1-240-2

The member was transferred to a new post and entered into the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan (GHSP) for the purpose of selling his old post house. In compliance with Force advice, he did not take a house-hunting trip until after 30 days from his entry into the GHSP. At the new post, the real estate market was very active and housing demand exceeded supply. He was unable to find a suitable, affordable house and consequently, contracted to have one built. He had to return to the new post twice in order to review the house plans, which were finally approved during the second trip, a month after the house-hunting trip. The occupancy date of the new house was four months later. The member and his wife had to vacate the old post house for GHSP purposes less than 60 days after the house-hunting trip. His wife remained behind in rental housing for work purposes and the member relocated to the new post where he stayed in a hotel during the week and returned to stay with his wife at the old post on the weekends. His wife visited him at the new post once. He was authorized for 23 days' full interim accommodation and 14 days' accommodation only. He submitted an expense claim for certain relocation expenses incurred after the house-hunting trip, including the two later trips to the new post and the visit by his wife. He also requested that his interim accommodation coverage be extended for an additional 13 days on an exception basis. The member was reimbursed less than he had claimed. The Appropriate Officer found that he had used incorrect rates for mileage and for the composite daily meal allowance, and disallowed certain expenses, in particular those for the member's second trip after the house-hunting trip and his wife's visit. His request for additional interim accommodation was denied on the grounds that the his circumstances were not exceptional.

The member submitted two grievances, one against the reduction in his expense claim and the other against the refusal to extend interim accommodation. He argued that his circumstances were exceptional because the housing market in the new post made suitable, affordable housing almost impossible to find and that therefore, his decision to build and the consequent relocation costs were reasonable necessities. He was of the view that he had done everything possible to minimize the relocation costs and that the recommendation not to take a house-hunting trip until after 30 days from entry into the GHSP had delayed the finalization of his housing arrangements.

The Appropriate Officer responded that the member's situation was self-induced and not exceptional or unusual. The Grievance Advisory Board (GAB) found that the adjustments made to the member's expense claim were correct, that the member had not researched the new post housing market before his house-hunting trip and that he had neglected to get the required pre-approval requirement for additional house-hunting trips. It also found that it was the member's decision to build a new house that had created the need for lengthy interim accommodation and that he should have to bear the cost consequences. It did not think that his circumstances were exceptional. The Level I adjudicator concurred with the GAB and denied both grievances.

On November 26, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that the adjustments made to the member's relocation expense claim were correct. It also found that the member's interim accommodation entitlement should be extended because the member's decision to build and the occupancy date of the new house were reasonable in light of the very active housing market in the new post, the Force-caused delay in taking the house-hunting trip and the member's efforts at minimizing his relocation costs as much as possible.

The Committee recommended that the grievance against the adjustments to the member's relocation expense claim be denied. It recommended that the grievance against the refusal to extend the member's interim accommodation entitlement should be upheld and that the member be granted a 13-day extension of interim accommodation.

On January 7, 2000, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner found that the combination of circumstances surrounding the Grievor's relocation represented an exceptional case. He agreed with the Committee that the grievance on the member's period of interim accommodation should be upheld and that the period of interim accommodation should be retroactively extended by 13 days.

The Commissioner denied the grievance on the reduction of the Grievor's expense claim.