Grievance Case Summary - G-329

An RCMP member grieved the decision made by the RCMP to stop paying the cost of retirement moves for members who were never required to relocate during their career. The decision was based on an opinion issued by Treasury Board Secretariat that expending public funds for such moves violated the basic principles of the relocation policy approved by Treasury Board and which is contained in the RCMP Relocation Directive. The Grievor had been with the Force for 27 years when the decision was announced and had planned to retire in a few years. Throughout his career with the Force, he had always worked in the same geographic area and therefore never been required to relocate. In 1996, he was transferred to a new worksite and while he could have then availed himself of the opportunity to relocate at Force expense, he chose not to, based on the understanding that he would still be entitled to relocate at Force expense when he retired. The Grievor pointed out that although he saved money for the RCMP in 1996 by choosing not to relocate, that choice would end up imposing a financial burden on him if the Force's decision was to be applied in his instance. He argued that this was unfair as he would certainly have relocated in 1996 in order to preserve his entitlement to a Force-paid retirement relocation had he known then that the Force would later change its policy on retirement moves. At Level I, the merits of the grievance were not addressed because the Adjudicator determined that the grievance had not been submitted within the time permitted by the RCMP Act, i.e. 30 days from the date that the Grievor became aware of the decision. The Adjudicator relied on the fact that the grievance presentation form was date-stamped as having been received by the Force 34 days after the date indicated by the Grievor as to when he became aware of the decision. In his Level II submissions, the Grievor indicates that he completed his grievance presentation form 28 days after the date that he became aware of the decision and placed it in the interoffice mail on the same date. The delay in the grievance reaching its destination arose from the fact that mail was not being processed on a daily basis, contrary to what the Grievor had assumed to be the case at the time.

The Grievor complied with the Level I grievance deadline because he mailed his grievance before the deadline. The fact that it was not received until much later is therefore irrelevant. The Grievor cannot be held responsible for delays in the processing of the mail.

As for the merits of the grievance, the fact that the Grievor had an opportunity to relocate in 1996 when his worksite changed does not create an entitlement to a retirement move at Force expense. While it is true that he would have such an entitlement had he been authorized to move at Force expense at the time of his transfer, the more salient fact to consider is that the Grievor has always had the opportunity, throughout his career, to reside at the location of his choice. Accordingly, there is no compelling reason why public funds should be expended to help him relocate once he retires from the Force. The retirement relocation policy is intended to facilitate RCMP members returning to their community at the end of their career if they were required to leave that community during their career due to the itinerant nature of their work. Although the systematic granting of retirement moves at Force expense to all regular members over a period of many years may have succeeded in conveying the impression that this was an entitlement, that was a mistaken impression which needed to be corrected. Although it may be unfair to the Grievor that the Force is not abiding by an earlier commitment to pay his relocation expenses when he retires, it would be unfair to Canadian taxpayers that public funds should be expended for a purpose that runs contrary to the basic principles of the relocation policy approved by Treasury Board.

The grievance should be denied.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

With respect to the issue of the time limit at Level I, the Commissioner agreed with the findings of the ERC. He therefore ruled that the Level I adjudicator had jurisdiction to hear the grievance. Since there was sufficient information contained in the grievance record to allow for a determination at Level II, the Commissioner decided to address the grievance on the merits.

The issue was whether the RCMP could or should pay the cost of a retirement move for a member who was not required to relocate during his career. The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the ERC.

Accordingly, the grievance was denied.