Grievance Case Summary - G-278

The grievance concerns the rejection of the Grievor's request that the Force pay the cost of shipping his household effects from Norway House, Manitoba to Winnipeg when he was transferred out of Norway House. Three years earlier, the Grievor had been transferred from Winnipeg to Norway House but was permitted to retain his principal residence in Winnipeg. He agreed at the time to move at no cost to the Force. The parties disagreed as to what were the implications of that agreement which was not in writing. While the Grievor considered that he had only waived his entitlement to payment of expenses to relocate to Norway House, the Respondent maintained that the agreement covered the Grievor's relocation expenses when he left Norway House as well. The Grievor's transfer out of Norway House was to Oakbank, which is located 60 kilometres east of Winnipeg but he decided that he would move back to his Winnipeg residence for the first year of his new posting and intended after that to relocate to Oakbank. The Force was prepared to pay the cost of the Grievor's move from Winnipeg to Oakbank because his transfer to Norway House was considered a "no cost move". During the three years that he was in Norway House, the Grievor had been required to purchase furnishings because the Force was not willing to permit him to reside in furnished accommodations which were available for other members. After learning that the Respondent would not be prepared to pay his relocation costs to Winnipeg, the Grievor sold some of his furnishings but had to do so for far less than what he had paid for them, he gave away others and moved the rest by himself using his personal vehicle. The Force paid the Grievor his travel expenses to return to Winnipeg but the Grievor was seeking additional compensation to offset the financial losses that he had incurred.

The Grievor's transfer from Norway House to Oakbank included a relocation and the Force was therefore liable for expenses that the Grievor incurred to move to Norway House. Its policy on no cost moves is of dubious validity and, in any event, should have been spelled out in writing. The Grievor's transfer to Oakbank also involved a relocation and the Grievor was therefore entitled to be relocated at Force expense at that time as well, notwithstanding his agreement to move at no cost to Norway House. What the Grievor is not entitled to, however, is to have the Force then subsequently pay for his relocation from Winnipeg to Oakbank. The reimbursement of the Grievor's travel expenses from Norway House to Winnipeg represents the only compensation to which he is entitled as there is no legal basis to compensate him for other losses that he may have incurred.

The grievance should be denied.

The Commissioner has rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

Commissioner Zaccardelli agreed with the External Review Committee's findings and recommendation that the member's grievance be denied.

While acknowledging that the grievance met the timeliness requirements and had standing, Commissioner Zaccardelli decided that the Grievor was entitled to one move only, from Norway House to Oakbank. If he preferred to live in Winnipeg temporarily, he would be entitled to have the Force relocate him to Winnipeg, but it would not be a fair application of the IRP to pay him again, a year later, to move from Winnipeg to Oakbank.

Commissioner Zaccardelli also decided that, for the Grievor to qualify for the non-taxable $2,500 (approximately), he would have to demonstrate that amount in actual expenses, beyond the expenses already reimbursed by the Respondent, via the travel policy.

Commissioner Zaccardelli therefore denied the Grievance.