Grievance Case Summary - G-263

In 1996, the Grievor qualified for promotion to the rank of corporal. In 1998, a corporal's position was identified in a detachment located 550 kilometres from the Grievor's house. The Grievor agreed to the transfer and was expected to arrive at the new detachment three months after the effective date of the transfer. However, because the Grievor was not able to sell his house, at a price which he considered reasonable, he asked for and was granted some extensions of his transfer implementation date. In the meantime, the Grievor applied for Temporary Dual Relocation Assistance (TDRA), which is made available to members when two residences are temporarily maintained during the initial stages of a relocation, but his application was rejected. The Grievor grieved that decision.

The Grievance Advisory Board ("GAB") recommended that the grievance be denied, saying that the the Grievor had relocated based on his own decision as he was not ordered to do so.

The Level I adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that it was the Grievor's decision not to accept the price offered under the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan, which created the situation in which he found himself.

On October 11, 2001, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied. It noted that whether there was an operational requirement or not was not the most important question to consider, although it was quite clear that the Grievor had been told that his move was urgent. However, the Committee said that the Level I adjudicator was right in pointing out that the Grievor himself was responsible for the fact he was faced with having to maintain two residences. The Committee indicated that the purpose of TDRA was not to protect RCMP members from fluctuations in real estate market prices, but rather to address circumstances where it is not reasonable to expect the member and his family to arrive at the new post at the same time.

The Committee noted that it would not be fair to conclude that the Grievor's promotional transfer placed him in a situation where he was necessarily going to lose a significant amount of money. He could have managed this situation in a manner that would not have resulted in any financial loss for him. The Committee concluded the one-month of TDRA which the Grievor received was fair and reasonable and that granting TDRA for a longer period would not be warranted.

On December 18, 2001, the Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter, as follows:

After careful review of the file, the Commissioner agree with the recommendations of the Chair of the Committee and the reasons provided. Therefore, this grievance is denied.