Grievance Case Summary - G-222

In 1993, the member was transferred to a new detachment. Between 1993 and 1996, the member rented 4 different houses, each of which were then subsequently sold, requiring him to move. In November 1996, the member was given one month's notice by his landlord to vacate his residence as it had been sold. Accordingly, the member inquired whether the RCMP would be willing to pay for the costs associated with the storage of his household effects, since the only house available for rent was fully furnished, or would extend the two-year period provided under the Relocation Directive to purchase a house. The RCMP agreed to extend the two-year period. The member then inquired about the expenses that would be covered for both the purchase of his residence and interim accommodation. The RCMP replied that the extension would cover the normal expenses associated with the purchase of his residence, and that there were no provisions covering interim accommodation, storage and movement of household effects. Three months later, the member submitted a claim for expenses related to the purchase of his house and for storage costs. The storage period represented the time between the day the member's lease was terminated and the day his new house became available. The portion of the claim relating to the storage costs was rejected. The member submitted a grievance.

The Level I adjudicator found that the member had been told earlier that his storage expenses would not be reimbursed. The adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that it had been presented outside the Level l time limit. The member submitted the matter to Level II. The member argued that a grievance could not have been presented earlier because he had not known, at the time, how much the storage of his household effects would cost.

On February 24, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee noted that the RCMP Act provides that a grievance at Level I must be submitted within 30 days of the time the member becomes aware of a decision which aggrieves him. The Committee, referring to previous Findings and Recommendations, explained that the "aggrieved" requirement does not mean that expenses must already have been incurred. The Committee found that the member was aggrieved by the RCMP's first decision concerning his entitlement to reimbursement for storage expenses. Therefore, the Committee concluded that the member should have submitted his grievance within 30 days of the date he became aware of that decision. The Committee also considered whether the Force's second decision was a new decision that was grievable in and of itself, and concluded that it was not.

The Committee also examined the merits of the grievance in the event that the Commissioner disagreed with the Committee's findings regarding the time limits issue. The Committee found that reimbursement of the member's costs could not have been justified under the Relocation Directive because they are not specifically covered in the Directive and because they do not fall within its purpose and scope. The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied on the basis that the member did not comply with the time limits. In the alternative, the Committee recommended that it be denied on the merits.

On March 23, 1999, the Commissioner provided his decision in this matter. His decision, as summarized by his office is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee and denied the grievance as it was presented beyond the required limitation period.