Grievance Case Summary - G-297

When the Grievor was relocated at Force expense, he made the decision to sell his residential property at his old post rather than retain it because he was advised verbally by a representative from the contractor designated under the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) that in order to qualify for compensation available to members who opt not to sell their property, he would have to retain the property for at least one year. Seven months after selling his property and being transferred, the Grievor was informed that this information had been incorrect. He therefore sought compensation on the grounds that he would not have sold his property at the time of his transfer had he been provided with correct information by the contractor. At Level I, the grievance was denied on the grounds that it had not been submitted within the time permitted by the Act, the Grievor having waited more than 30 days after learning that he had been misled by the contractor.

The grievance was submitted on time at Level I because the decision not to compensate the Grievor was made by the Force, rather than the contractor, and the grievance was presented within 30 days of the Grievor learning of that decision. However, there is no merit to the grievance. The Grievor should not have relied on the verbal advice provided by the contractor and instead sought written confirmation before he made the decision to sell his property. The Force does not have any discretion in the matter as the IRP is a Treasury Board policy that does not allow any provision for compensation to be made in such circumstances. As well, Treasury Board policy does not allow ex gratia payments to be made in order to compensate members for relocation expenses.

The grievance should be denied.

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Committee and denied the grievance.The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Committee and denied the grievance.