Grievance Case Summary - G-212

A member was transferred back to a location where he had previously been posted and where he already owned a house, which he had retained under 4.4.4 of the Relocation Directive. This provision allows members to retain a residence at a post from which they are leaving without losing their right to claim expenses associated with the disposal of the retained residence. Prior to his move, he wished to travel to his future post in order to inspect his house to determine what maintenance and improvements were required and to arrange for this to be undertaken. The house had been occupied by tenants for over two years. In order to do this, he sought authorization to take a House Hunting Trip (HHT). His request was denied by the RCMP on the basis that the purpose of a HHT is to find accommodation at the new post and the member already owned a residence there. The member grieved this decision, arguing that he should be entitled to travel to his new post to ensure that his house was in a suitable condition.

The Level I adjudicator agreed with the RCMP and denied the grievance. The member presented his grievance to Level II.

On June 29, 1998, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The External Review Committee first examined whether the RCMP had erred in refusing HHT benefits to the member. On the basis of its interpretation of the policy and conclusions on a similar issue in past findings and recommendations, the Committee concluded that a HHT is to be taken for the specific purpose of finding accommodation at the new post. The member's expenses were thus not reimbursable under the provisions of the Relocation Directive allowing a HHT. The Committee also examined whether the expenses should be considered under the exceptions provision of the Directive (1.1.6), which provides that authority for payment of non-covered expenses can be sought from Treasury Board by the Commissioner. The Committee noted that the Directive specifically provides for three types of trips between the old post and the new post; a trip to inspect one's house prior to the move is not included in these three types of trips. Concluding that the expenses for the Grievor's trip should be reimbursed in this case would amount to recognizing a new type of trip, not already identified in the Directive and thus not within its limits. The Committee therefore did not recommend that authority for payment be sought from Treasury Board in this case. The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

Although recommending that the grievance be denied under the Relocation Directive as it now stands, the Committee commented that a member who has retained his house at an old post, and who is to move back to that post, should be allowed a reimbursable trip back to the post in order to make the necessary arrangements, in light of the fact that he is not entitled to a HHT. The Committee urged the Commissioner to initiate a policy review to consider the possibility of such an amendment to the Directive.

On July 30, 1998, the Commissioner rendered his decision. He agreed with the Committee on the merits and denied the grievance. He did not, however, support the Committee's suggestion that he seek an amendment to the Relocation Directive to allow the type of expenses such as those which were incurred by the member in this case.