Grievance Case Summary - G-211

Bottles from a member's private collection of fine wines and spirits were lost during an RCMP-ordered relocation. The member claimed the value of the lost bottles from the moving company. The company, however, refused to provide reimbursement, relying on a provision of the Government Conditions for Moving Household Goods (GCMHG) which states that such items will not be covered. The member sought assistance from the RCMP. He argued that he had not been informed, prior to the move, that the bottles would not be covered and he requested that the RCMP take up the matter with the moving company. The RCMP sought explanations from the company. After these were provided, the RCMP concluded that it had done everything within its power to assist the member. The member grieved, seeking reimbursement for his loss or financial assistance to pursue the matter in court against the moving company.

In essence, the member's arguments were that the documentation supplied by the RCMP prior to the move had failed to mention the limitation with respect to insurance of alcoholic beverages. For its part, the RCMP maintained that the matter was between the member and the moving company. It also pointed out that the member's spouse had signed a waiver from the moving company prior to the move indicating that she had been informed of the applicable exclusions from coverage. The RCMP argued that this qualified as a binding acknowledgement on the part of the member.

The Level I adjudicator denied the grievance on the issue of time limits, noting that the initial grievance presentation had been stamped as "Received" outside of the 30-day limit. The adjudicator also commented that, given the existence of the signed waiver sheet, the member could not claim to be aggrieved.

The member submitted the matter to Level II. He provided documentation to demonstrate that he had delivered the grievance to Headquarters within the time limit. He also submitted that the waiver form had been tendered to his spouse while he was absent and that, in view of the previous lack of adequate information concerning exclusions, the waiver could not be considered binding.

On June 25, 1998, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The External Review Committee found that the member had demonstrated that the grievance had been submitted within the time limit. On the merits, the Committee found that the RCMP documentation supplied to the member prior to the move did not contain adequate information on the limitation of coverage. Furthermore, while the documentation supplied by the moving company with the waiver form contained some information, some of that information was incorrect and the manner in which it was provided was such that this information did not overcome the basic deficiency in the RCMP information. Despite these findings, the Committee concluded that the member had no direct claim against the RCMP under the Relocation Directive or the GCMHG because Treasury Board had provided that compensation for loss or damage to household effects is the responsibility of the moving company. The Committee stated that it was unable to find that the member would have a valid claim against the RCMP based on negligent misrepresentation but stated that fairness dictated that the member be compensated. The Committee found that, in the circumstances, this compensation could be provided under the Ex Gratia policy, but with a deduction for any amounts that the member was able to recover from the moving company. On this basis, the Committee recommended that the grievance be upheld.

On August 6, 1998, the Commissioner rendered his decision. He disagreed with the Committee on the merits. He did not believe that payment should come from the RCMP because the dispute lay between the member and the moving company.