Grievance Case Summary - G-246

This was a grievance against the refusal to pay the member's storage costs relating to his relocation to another Division. The member received his transfer notice seven months prior to his proposed implementation date and was offered the chance to opt into the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan (GHSP) for the purpose of selling his house. After consulting with his real estate agent, he decided to do so even though the GHSP requirement to vacate the residence on the 90^th day after acceptance into the plan would mean he would have to move out of his house more than three months prior to his proposed implementation date and incur storage expenses. He attempted to have his entry into the GHSP delayed or alternatively, to have the Force pay for his storage costs, but was unsuccessful. However, the Force offered to delay the GHSP take-over of the house on the 90^th day until the member had completed his duties at the post he was leaving, if the house had not been sold in the interim. The member refused the offer because he would be away from home during most of this period and he was concerned that if the house sold with an immediate possession date, he would be unable to make adequate arrangements for his family on short notice.

The member presented his grievance more than a year after he had first been told that he would have to pay for his storage. The Level I adjudicator held that the grievance was out of time since it had not been presented within 30 days of the original refusal to pay for the member's storage. The member then filed his Level II grievance.

On February 23, 2000, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that the grievance was timely. During a review of the refusal requested by the member, the Appropriate Officer invited the member to respond to his observations about the case, thereby raising a legitimate expectation that the refusal to pay for the storage expenses would be reconsidered if the member provided submissions in response, which he then did. As a result, the member was entitled to have the decision reopened and it was, in fact, reopened, the issues raised by the member were reexamined, and a new grievable decision was made. The member submitted his grievance within 30 days of receipt of the reopened decision and therefore, it was within the statutory time limit.

On the merits, the Committee found that the member had not shown that his storage expenses were necessary and incidental to the shipment of his effects to the new workplace as required by section 3.7.1 of the RCMP Relocation Directive, in the sense that the expenses were unavoidable. The member had other options available to him that would have avoided his having to place his household effects in storage. He was free not to participate in the GHSP and could have sold his house on his own and arranged for a closing date closer to his proposed implementation date. He could have remained in the house beyond the 90-day period until it was actually sold and arranged to move to the new workplace at that time. He could also have arranged to take up possession of a residence in the new post before he had to take up his new duties there. In the circumstances of this case, the storage expenses primarily resulted from the member's own choices.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied on the merits.

On March 27, 2000, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee's finding that the Level I grievance was submitted within the required time period. As for the merits the Commissioner supported the Committee's conclusion that the Grievor's storage expenses were not necessary or incidental to his relocation and he denied the grievance on the merits.