Grievance Case Summary - G-332

The Grievor was an RCMP member until he retired in April 1999. At that time, the Force provided an information package to him describing his retirement benefits, which included the entitlement to relocate anywhere in Canada at force expense within two years. In March 2000, the Grievor was informed by the Force that it had modified the retirement benefits package and that he would only be entitled to have his relocation costs reimbursed if he relocated at least 40 kilometres from his current residence. The modification came about as the result of 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. Three months later, the Grievor relocated. His new residence was less than 40 kilometres from his previous residence. He then submitted an expense claim to the Force which was rejected on the grounds that the relocation did not qualify for reimbursement under the new rules. Two years later, the Grievor made another request to have his relocation expenses reimbursed and was once again told that he did not qualify for reimbursement. At that point, he grieved the Force's decision to modify his retirement benefits without his consent, arguing that the information package that he received at the time of his retirement constituted a binding contract. The Level I adjudicator did not address the merits of the grievance because he concluded that retired members cannot avail themselves of the grievance process. In his Level II submissions, the Grievor invoked the guarantee of equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination which is found in s. 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the basis for his argument that retired members are entitled to the same access to the grievance process as serving members in order to challenge decisions made by the Force.

The Act is not intended to deprive retired members of access to the grievance process in order to challenge a decision or omission by the Force which pertains to a matter that arose during the course of their employment. Therefore, if it was while serving as a member of the Force that the Grievor first received a commitment from the Force that it would pay his relocation expenses anywhere in Canada once he retired, the grievance process is the appropriate recourse to challenge the failure to honour that commitment. However, the time at which the grievance ought to have been submitted was in March 2000, when the Grievor was informed that the benefit of a retirement move at Force expense would no longer be available to him unless he moved at least 40 kilometres. There is no reasonable explanation as to why the Grievor waited until May 2003 before submitting his grievance and therefore no grounds to recommend that the Commissioner extend the Level I grievance deadline beyond the 30-day period stipulated by the RCMP Act.

Even if the Commissioner were to extend the grievance deadline, the grievance would have to be denied on the merits. 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 when he was informed about it in March 2000 and there is no indication that he had already incurred relocation expenses. 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:

On the issue of standing, the Commissioner ruled that it was essential to examine whether the subject-matter of the grievance concerned an employment issue. In the present case, where the the grievance related to a benefit that accrued to the member as a result of his service with the RCMP, access to the grievance process was reasonable given that the grievance process was designed to resolve disputes arising from the employer-employee relationship between the Force and its members. This grievance concerned a change to a retirement benefit that was available to the Grievor for up to two years after retirement. Therefore, the Commissioner ruled that although the Grievor was retired, he had standing to present his grievance. The Commissioner further commented that the standing of retired members to grieve must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

As for the issue of time limit, the Commissioner made the decision that the present grievance did not comply with the requirements of s. 31(2) of the RCMP Act. Furthermore, he found no compelling reason to retroactively extend the grievance deadline. Consequently, the Commissioner declined to address the merits of the grievance.

Accordingly, the grievance was denied.