Grievance Case Summary - G-218-218-1

The Grievor was transferred, but was unable to sell his residence at the old post. The property consisted of a house on a main property, together with adjoining land. The Grievor was accepted into the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan (GHSP). The GHSP Contractor established a GHSP price for the entire property that was considerably less than the value at which it had been assessed two years earlier. The Grievor, meanwhile, had been approached by an individual who wanted to purchase the adjoining land separately at a price advantageous to the Grievor. The Grievor sought a revised GHSP offer based on the value of the main property, without the adjoining land. The Contractor calculated a revised GHSP price based on this proposed arrangement, but this was subject to verification of the amount. Shortly afterwards, however, the Grievor was contacted and told that he had to decide immediately whether to accept the initial GHSP offer for the entire property. According to the Grievor, when he asked what had happened to the revised arrangement, the Contractor and the Force each blamed the other for not approving it. The Grievor eventually agreed to enter the GHSP under the terms of the initial offer. Prior to accepting, however, he consulted a lawyer.

The Grievor sought reimbursement of the legal fees from the Force and, after this was refused, he submitted a grievance. Later, the Grievor learned details of the involvement of the RCMP's GHSP national co-ordinator in refusing the revised arrangement. The Grievor submitted another grievance, alleging that the arrangement was wrongfully refused and seeking compensation for the lost separate sale of the adjoining land, and for the legal fees. The legal fees aspect of the second grievance was effectively joined with the earlier grievance and was processed separately from the matter concerning the lost separate sale of the adjoining land. The matter before the Committee consisted of the joined legal fees grievances. The Level I adjudicator denied the Grievor's claim on the basis that decisions under the GHSP are made by the Contractor, and not the Force, and therefore are not grievable under the RCMP Act. The Grievor submitted the matter to Level II.

On January 15, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. In its review, the Committee noted that it had two grievances before it: i) a grievance seeking reimbursement for the legal fees under policy and, ii) a separately-submitted grievance seeking payment of the legal fees as compensation for the Force's alleged wrongful actions. The Committee found that the Grievor had standing to submit both grievances. While many matters under the GHSP will be decisions and acts of the Contractor, which may not be grieved under the RCMP Act, there remain certain decisions or acts which will have been taken by the Force. For both grievances, the decisions or acts challenged were those of the Force. Nevertheless, the Committee found that each grievance had a separate applicable time limit and that only grievance ii) had been submitted on time. The Committee therefore recommended that grievance i) be denied on the basis of time limits and it proceeded to the merits only on grievance ii).

The Committee recommended that grievance ii) be denied on the merits. The Grievor maintained that the GHSP national co-ordinator for the RCMP did not have the authority to deny the revised arrangement, as this authority belonged to the GHSP departmental co-ordinator. The Committee found, however, that the GHSP national co-ordinator for the RCMP was the departmental co-ordinator. The Grievor also argued that the revised arrangement had constituted a second GHSP offer, that the return to the original arrangement had effectively constituted a third offer, and that, contrary to the GHSP policy, he had not been given five days to consider this last offer. The Committee found, however, that the revised arrangement had been provisional and that no second offer had actually been extended to the Grievor. The Committee also found that even if it had been determined that the Force erred in failing to give the Grievor additional time to make his decision, the Grievor had not demonstrated how such an error caused him to incur the extra legal fees, nor how it made the Force ultimately liable for these fees.

On February 18, 1999, the Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter. His decision, as summarized by his office is as follows:

The Commissioner agrees with the Committee that the Grievor had standing in each grievance but that the first grievance was submitted outside the time limit. The Commissioner further agrees that the Grievor did not demonstrate that his legal fees were included in the list of legal services to be paid and; even if the legal fees were included in the list, the Grievor has not demonstrated why the Force should be liable for them. The grievance is denied.