Grievance Case Summary - G-239

The member submitted a grievance regarding his participation in the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan (GHSP). He felt that the terms of the GHSP contract had been unfair, that the appraisals had undervalued his home and that the actions of the Force's GHSP Coordinator (the "Coordinator") with regard to the offer he received on the property had resulted in a financial loss to him.

The Appropriate Officer took the position that the member did not have standing to bring the grievance. He submitted that the administration of the GHSP was not the responsibility of the RCMP, and that therefore there had not been any decision made in the administration of the affairs of the Force. The Level I adjudicator agreed, finding that she had no jurisdiction to review the matter, as it was not an issue that was grievable under s. 31(1) of the Act.

On November 16, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that the Force had a certain role to play in the administration of the GHSP, and that therefore there were issues that the member could challenge through a grievance. Specifically, as the Coordinator is responsible for approving the guaranteed price to be offered to a member, a member may challenge the propriety of that approval. As well, since it is the Force that bears the responsibility to determine whether a member will be removed from the Plan if the member refuses an offer at or above the GHSP price, the member in this case was entitled to challenge the actions of Force employees in this regard. While there were matters raised by the member that could not be pursued in a grievance, such as the terms of the contract and the appraisals themselves, which were both decisions made outside of the Force, the decisions made by the Force in its administration of the GHSP were grievable.

On the merits of the grievance, the Committee found no error in the Coordinator's decision to approve the guaranteed price. Since it was clear that two appraisals had been done, the member had been given the opportunity to select the appraisers, the difference between the two appraisals was less than 5% and both appraisers had responded to the member's complaints, there was no compelling reason for the Coordinator not to accept the GHSP price. Only if there had been evidence of manifest error or irregularity which could be apparent to a non-expert, and which affected the appraisers' estimate of market value, would the Coordinator have been expected to delay approval of the GHSP price until such time as the appraisers had had an opportunity to correct their error. There was no such evidence in this case. Similarly, in agreeing to participate in the GHSP, the member had been aware that he risked removal from the GHSP if he did not accept an offer at or above the GHSP price. His concerns as to how the Force reacted in June 1998 to the price that he was offered, and the subsequent direction regarding his counteroffer, were therefore without merit. There had been nothing unreasonable in the actions of the Force.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance.

On February 3, 2000, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Acting Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Committee for the reasons given by the Committee. The grievance was denied.