Grievance Case Summary - G-691

In February 2010, while posted in province A, the Grievor accepted a six-month leave without pay (LWOP) while his partner received an internship in province B. His partner moved half of their household goods and effects (HG&E) to province B. They planned to return to province A in August 2010. On July 7, 2010, the Grievor was advised that he had been posted to a surplus position at "X" Division Headquarters in province A with a start date in early September 2010. Sometime before August 23, 2010, the Grievor arranged a rental vehicle to move the couple's HG&E from province B to province A. On August 3, 2010, the Griever learned that the surplus position in province A had been cancelled.

On August 16, 2010, a Director in province C contacted the Grievor to inquire if he was interested in interviewing for a position in province C. The Grievor agreed and interviewed for the position on August 24, 2010 by phone from province B. The Grievor obtained the position and spent August 29, 2010 packing, and departed for province C on August 30, 2010 in a rental vehicle, towing his personal vehicle. The Grievor had modified his rental vehicle reservation from province B to province C after he had accepted the position in province C. He arrived in province C in early September 2010. A Transfer Notice (A-22A) was issued on September 7, 2010. The Grievor questioned his new Director regarding the reimbursement of his relocation costs upon starting in his new position; he received only general advice to keep his receipts.

On October 28, 2010, the Relocation Reviewer submitted a business case on the Grievor's behalf to the Respondent seeking reimbursement for his relocation expenses. The Respondent denied the Grievor's request for reimbursement of relocation expenses prior to the issuance of the A-22A. He also denied the Grievor's request to be reimbursed for relocation expenses related to the shipment of his HG&E from province A and his airfare because the arrangements were not made through the Government contracted travel services. The Grievor grieved this decision.

Upon entering the Early Resolution phase, the Respondent indicated that he did not have the authority to approve the relocation expenses, but submitted a business case to the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). The TBS denied the rental vehicle expenses, but allowed some of the remaining relocation expenses. The Grievor removed some expenses from his request for reimbursement; therefore, the remaining issue was the rental vehicle expenses.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He found that reimbursement for the Grievor's relocation expenses incurred before the issuance of the A-22A; therefore, the Respondent's denial was consistent with the IRP and supported by TBS.

The ERC found that the IRP did not allow for the reimbursement of the Grievor's rental vehicle expenses. The IRP indicates that the moving of the HG&E must be made through the Household Goods Removal Services contract and by the Relocation Reviewer. It did not allow for the Grievor to make his own arrangements with another service. However, the ERC found that the Grievor's circumstances were exceptional because he had just returned from a deployment when he learned that his posting was cancelled and a new posting was offered just a few days before he had to vacate his apartment. The ERC further found that the moving of the Grievor's HG&E was within the intent of the IRP and further found that the Respondent could have approved the expenses in these exceptional circumstances.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by her office, is as follows:

The Grievor challenged a decision by the Officer in Charge, Travel and Relocation Programs, to deny him reimbursement for relocation expenses totaling $4,646.25, incurred with respect to a rental vehicle reservation. At Level I, an Adjudicator directed that the Parties provide submissions on the preliminary issue of standing. The Level I Adjudicator was satisfied that the grievance was timely and the Grievor had standing. However, he found that the Grievor had failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent's decision was inconsistent with applicable legislation and policy. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The grievance was referred to the ERC. The ERC recommended that the grievance be allowed on the basis that the Grievor's circumstances were exceptional under section 1.12 of the IRP, the rental vehicle expenses fell within the general intent of the IRP, and the Respondent had the authority to approve and post-authorize the Grievor's expenses under sections 1.12.2 and 1.12.4. The Commissioner accepts the recommendation to allow the grievance.