Grievance Case Summary - G-331

An RCMP member grieved the decision made by the RCMP to stop paying the cost of retirement moves for members who moved less than 40 kilometres away from their previous residence. The decision was based on an opinion issued by Treasury Board Secretariat that expending public funds for local area 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 32 years when the decision was announced and had planned to retire in three years. He had already planned to relocate upon retirement to a property that he already owned and which was situated less than 40 kilometres from his current residence. The Grievor submitted that he should have been provided with advance notice of the decision in order to allow him to complete his retirement move before that decision was implemented. Although RCMP policy does not allow for retirement moves until within two years of a member's planned retirement date, the Grievor commented that exceptions to that rule had been made for several other members within the same division. He argued that it was unfair to withdraw the entitlement to a Force-paid retirement move given that he had been provided with an undertaking by the Force to pay his relocation expenses. The grievance was denied at Level I on the grounds that the Force had no legal authority to pay the cost of local area retirement moves.

The earlier undertaking by the Force to pay the Grievor's relocation costs for a local move did not constitute a binding contractual obligation. The change in the RCMP's interpretation of the relocation policy concerning local area moves was fully justified. That change did not create financial hardship for the Grievor because he had not yet relocated. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the change should apply in his case. 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 purpose behind paying for a retirement move is to facilitate members returning to their community if they have been required to relocate during their career in order to meet operational requirements. If members are content with remaining within the local area to which they were last transferred at Force expense, there cannot be any justification in having public funds expended for a retirement move as this would be inconsistent with relocation practices generally followed in the private and public sectors.

The grievance should be denied.

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

The issue was whether the RCMP could or should pay the cost of a retirement move under 40 kilometres. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the fact that the RCMP had at one time described retirement moves at Force expense as an entitlement did not create a binding contractual obligation to be honoured despite the amended policy interpretation. The change in the RCMP's interpretation of the relocation policy concerning local area moves was fully justified.

The Commissioner concluded that there was no supporting legal authority to pay the Grievor's relocation costs either under the terms of the RCMP Relocation Directive or Treasury Board's Policy on Claims and Ex Gratia Payments. According to the Commissioner, the circumstances of this case did not warrant seeking Treasury Board approval on an exception basis under s. 1.1.6. of the Relocation Directive.