Grievance Case Summary - G-357

The Grievor was transferred to a new location. Pursuant to the Integrated Relocation Program Pilot ("IRPP") applicable at the time, he took a House Hunting Trip ("HHT") which lasted seven days, of which approximately three and a half were spent on travel to and from his new location. The remaining time was spent at the location looking for a home. Prior to his HHT, the Grievor had spoken to a Royal Lepage Relocation Services ("RLRS") consultant, who had told him that his travel time to and from the location would not be counted as part of his HHT. The Grievor concluded that his HHT would be seen as being of a duration of three and a half days as opposed to five. The IRPP allowed for a credit up to a maximum of $250.00 to be given to the member for a shortened HHT. The Grievor applied for this credit and was refused because he had taken a total of seven days, inclusive of travel, for his trip. As a result of this refusal, the Division's Relocation Coordinator asked the Respondent to reconsider the decision because the Grievor had acted in good faith by following advice received by an RLRS consultant. The Respondent subsequently sought clarification from RLRS, and then confirmed the initial refusal. The matter was grieved, and the Level I adjudicator concluded that the Grievor had not met the time limit set out in subsection 31(2)(a) of the Act, which requires that a grievance be presented within thirty days after the day on which the Grievor knew of the decision giving rise to the grievance.

The Level I adjudicator erred when he found that the Grievor had not met the thirty day time limit set out in subsection 31(2)(a) of the Act. Following the initial refusal, new information had been provided to the Respondent which put the matter in a whole new light, and his decision thereafter should be considered a new decision that is subject on its own to being grieved.

It appears that the RLRS representative told the Grievor that he was being allowed up to nine days for the total duration of the HHT: the normal length of HHT (5 days at the location plus two days of travel) as well as an additional two days of travel. This meant that the Grievor still would be allowed up to 5 days at the location if he needed it. However, Section 3.21 of the IRPP, which provides for the shortened HHT credit, applies only where the member had used less than the normal length HHT, which is identified as 7 days (5 days plus 2 days of travel). The Grievor's HHT was of the normal length (7 days), and he could not therefore qualify for the shortened HHT credit. As well, the shortened HHT credit is only available where the travel was 650 km or less one way, and the Grievor had exceeded this distance. Finally, there is no evidence on file that the Grievor was misled by the RLRS representative on whether or not section 3.21 applied to his situation. Yet even if the RLRS representative had specifically told him that he would have been entitled to the shortened HHT credit, this should have led the Grievor to verify the information, because the statement was in contradiction to the IRPP.

The grievance should be denied.

The Commissioner has rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his personnel:

The Commissioner rendered his decision on September 13, 2006. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Grievor had presented the grievance within the 30-day time limit set out in section 31(2)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner also agreed with the Committee's finding that the shortened HHT credit does not apply to the Grievor because the credit is available only when the one-way travel distance is 650 km or less. In this case, the distance between the Grievor's old post and new location is 720 km. Consequently, the Grievor does not qualify for the shortened HHT credit. The Commissioner denied the grievance.