Grievance Case Summary - G-337

The Grievor was ordered to relocate. He retained the services of a realtor who spent many hours showing him different properties. The property that the Grievor eventually purchased had been listed as a private sale. Therefore, the owner was unwilling to pay a commission to the Grievor's realtor. The Grievor then paid his realtor an amount of $1,000 for his services. He requested reimbursement from the Force but the request was denied on the grounds that fees paid pursuant to a Buyer Agency Agreement did not constitute an authorized expense under the terms of the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP). The Grievor wrote back to explain that he had not entered into a Buyer Agency Agreement and asked that the decision be reconsidered. That request was rejected. It is only then that the matter was grieved. The Level I adjudicator concluded that the Grievor had not complied with the RCMP Act's requirement that the grievance be presented within 30 days of the date that the Grievor first became aware of the decision to reject his reimbursement claim. He described the Grievor's subsequent request that the Force reconsider its decision as an attempt to reargue his case and found that this attempt did not have the effect of extending the grievance deadline. At Level II, the Grievor maintained that the initial decision could not be considered final as it was based on the incorrect assumption that he had entered into a Buyer Agency Agreement with his relator.

It was reasonable for the Grievor to have interpreted the initial response from the Force as being based on a misinterpretation of the facts, given the ambiguous wording of that response, and that an explanation that he had not entered into a Buyer Agency Agreement could lead to a different decision. Given that his request for reconsideration clarified what seemed to be an important fact, it is only when the Force responded to that request that the 30-day grievance period started. The Level I adjudicator therefore should have addressed the merits.

However, the decision to deny reimbursement was correct because the IRP, which is a Treasury Board policy, does not authorize payments to a purchaser's realtor under any circumstances, whether nor not made pursuant to a Buyer Agency Agreement. However, even as a matter of basic fairness, the justification for public funds being used to compensate the Grievor's realtor is not apparent. Having made the decision to show the Grievor a property that was listed as a private sale, his realtor did not have a reasonable expectation that he would be compensated if the Grievor ended up purchasing that property.

The grievance should be denied.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the External Review Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.

With respect to the time limits at Level I, the Commissioner found that, in the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the Grievor to request reconsideration of the decision to deny reimbursement of real estate fees. The Grievor submitted his grievance in a timely fashion following the Respondent's final decision.

As for the grievance on the merits, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that there is no authority for reimbursement of the type of expenditure claimed by the Grievor.