Grievance Case Summary - G-230

The Grievor received a Force-paid pre-retirement relocation in 1995. The Administration Manual indicated that a member could, within two years of an intended retirement date, apply for pre-retirement relocation benefits. When the Grievor had not retired by July 1997, the Appropriate Officer sought reimbursement of the amount of the benefit on the basis that the Grievor had not retired within two years of his relocation. After requesting a more flexible approach, and having this request denied, the Grievor submitted a grievance, arguing that he should not have to reimburse the money, as the home he had purchased remained his intended retirement destination and he was close to retirement. He submitted that the two-year period indicated by the policy should be interpreted as a guideline only, and not as a mandatory time limit. The Appropriate Officer, on the other hand, submitted that the time limit was a mandatory one, having been established by Treasury Board in the RCMP Relocation Directive.

The Grievance Advisory Board (the "GAB") recommended that the grievance be denied. While it found that an extension of the two-year period in which to retire should be granted in exceptional circumstances, it found no such circumstances in this case. The Level I adjudicator denied the grievance. He found that the two-year period was mandatory and could not be extended, but that there were no extenuating circumstances in any event. The Grievor sought Level II adjudication.

On July 6, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that the two-year period in which pre-retirement benefits are stated to be available was not found in the Relocation Directive and was therefore not set by Treasury Board. Rather, the authority for the Force to pay for a retirement (or pre-retirement) relocation comes from the RCMP Regulations, 1988, which provide at s. 79 that the Commissioner may pay, in accordance with the Relocation Directive, the relocation expenses of "a retiring member who is eligible for a pension". The Regulations place a limit on the availability of this benefit to no more than two years after retirement, unless there are exceptional circumstances. There is nothing in the Relocation Directive that specifically addresses a retirement relocation, or limits its availability. It is the Force's AM which states that a member may seek a pre-retirement relocation up to two years before the member's intended retirement date. This policy, while a reasonable interpretation of the s. 79 authority, is not a mandatory time limit imposed by Treasury Board and therefore the Force may consider individual circumstances in determining whether to require a reimbursement of a paid pre-retirement benefit where a member has not retired within two years of receipt of that benefit. In this regard, the reasoning of the Appropriate Officer was incorrect, and he was not required by Treasury Board policy to enforce the two-year period.

The Committee found that a determination that a member would have to reimburse the cost of a pre-retirement relocation, if the member did not retire within two years of receiving it, should be based either on a finding that the member was not acting in good faith when the application for a pre-retirement relocation was made or that the member was no longer willing to commit to a definite retirement date in the near future. The Committee found that, for the purposes of section 79 of the Regulations, "a retiring member" could only be one who has announced a firm retirement date that is impending. In this case, the Committee found that the Grievor had been acting in good faith and intended to retire within two years when he applied for the benefit, but then changed his plans. He had indicated in a memorandum to the Appropriate Officer that his retirement was "certainly in the immediate future". The Committee recommended that the Grievor not be required to reimburse the cost of his pre-retirement relocation if he agreed to retire in the immediate future. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the Commissioner determine a date, some time before the end of the fiscal year, by which the Grievor must have retired from the RCMP. The Grievor should be required to reimburse the amount he received as a pre-retirement relocation benefit only if he had not retired by that date.

On October 29, 1999, the Acting Commissioner Zaccardelli rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner decided that the member in this case fully understood that he would be obliged to repay the expenses of the pre-retirement move if he did not retire within the appropriate time period, which according to Force policy was within two years of the intended discharge date. The grievance was denied.