Grievance Case Summary - G-249

The Grievor was posted to a two-member detachment with one Force-owned house, which was reserved for the detachment commander. Both members were required to reside in the community and the Grievor had to find private accommodation for his five-member family. However, the cost of private housing was high. The Grievor moved his family three times during the next two and a half years, at one point paying more than half his monthly income for rent and, at another time, residing in a two-bedroom apartment. Towards the end of his posting he received documentation showing the adjusted rents paid for the Force-owned house during the period of his posting. According to the documents, the detachment commanders had paid considerably less rent than the rents the grievor had paid for private housing. He submitted a grievance against what he claimed was inequitable treatment by the Force in regard to the higher rents he had had to pay in comparison with the rents paid by the detachment commanders. He argued that he had suffered financial prejudice because of this situation. He noted that the detachment commanders enjoyed subsidized housing whereas he, as the lower paid member with a larger family, had to pay higher rents for lesser accommodation.

The Level I adjudicator denied the grievance on the ground of standing because the Grievor had failed to show that he was aggrieved by a specific error, act or decision. The Grievor then submitted his Level II grievance and stated that he could not comment on the adjudicator's observation. He reiterated his argument that he had been treated unfairly by being compelled to pay market rate for accommodation in a community where the rents were unnaturally inflated while suffering the same lack of privacy as the detachment commander. He also stated that the Force had purchased another house in the community, in which his successor would reside.

On May 9, 2000, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that the grievance was referable to the Committee pursuant to Regulation 36(a) in that it pertained to the interpretation and application of the Living Accommodation Charges Directive (the "Directive"), which is a government policy applicable to other departments as well as to the RCMP. The Committee stated that, due to lack of evidence, it was not possible to conclude that the grievance related to a specific decision, act or omission of the Force. There was no evidence of a decision by the Force to refuse to provide the Grievor accommodation. Further, a failure by the Force to address the Grievor's housing problem could not be considered an omission that could be grieved because there was no evidence that the Force had been notified or otherwise became aware, prior to the grievance being filed, of a lack of housing. In addition, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the Force allocated its house on a hierarchical basis, which would have been contrary to the Directive.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

On June 26, 2000, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed that the grievance did not relate to a specific decision, act or omission of the Force and denied the grievance.