Grievance Case Summary - G-333

The Grievor purchased a property in the Ottawa area, which then became his principal residence. He received a notice of transfer to Ottawa three months later and then submitted a claim for the expenses relating to the purchase of his property. This request was granted. One year later, the RCMP concluded that it should not have paid the Grievor's claim since he had purchased his property before receiving the notice of transfer. Thus, he was required to reimburse the amount of the claim. Two years later, a Level I grievance was presented against the decision to order him to reimburse the amount of the claim. The Grievor did not indicate the grounds for his grievance. He stated however that he would indicate them once he received certain information as to whether other members who had been transferred had maintained a residence somewhere other than where they were transferred. The RCMP stated that this information was not available. The grievance unit then gave the Grievor 14 days to submit his arguments. This time limit was then extended at the Grievor's request, but he did not comply with it. The Level I Adjudicator decided accordingly that the grievance was inadmissible.

The Level I Adjudicator misinterpreted the Act. The time limit allowed for presenting a grievance does not pertain to the presentation of the grounds. The grievance simply had to clearly indicate the decision challenged and it had to be clear that this decision could adversely affect the Grievor. Yet the grievance was not presented within the time limit set out in the Act, since it was nearly two years prior that the Grievor was required to reimburse the amount of his transfer claim. The Act required him to present his grievance within 30 days of his being informed of the decision challenged.

As to the merits of the grievance, since the Grievor did not demonstrate that the purchase of his new property was in any way related to his transfer to Ottawa a few months later, the RCMP was not authorized to reimburse him for the expenses relating to this purchase, further to the Treasury Board Relocation Directive.

The grievance should be dismissed.

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

[TRANSLATION] The Commissioner concluded that the grievance should be denied since it was not submitted within the prescribed time limit of 30 days. As to the merits, there was insufficient justification since the Grievor did not demonstrate a link between the purchase of his house in 1997 and his transfer 3 months later. The Commissioner accepted the recommendation of the ERC.