Grievance Case Summary - G-338

With the Grievor's consent, he was transferred to a small community in a predominately French-speaking region. The Grievor initially had concerns for his spouse because she only spoke English but he was told by the Force that it was a bilingual area. As well, the Grievor was informed that suitable housing was available. He expressed an interest in residing in a larger community located outside the detachment area but was told that there was "a firm expectation" that he would reside within the detachment area. After selling their home, the Grievor and his spouse travelled to the area to look for a new home but returned from their visit without making any housing arrangements because they were disappointed by the homes they inspected. As well, they were left with the impression that the area was not as bilingual as they had been led to believe and that it would be very difficult for the Grievor's spouse to secure employment. The Grievor began to reconsider his decision to move, which caused him considerable stress and he ended up on sick leave as a result. He asked that his transfer be cancelled and offered to pay his own relocation costs if his request was granted. That offer was accepted by the Force. Upon returning to work several weeks later, the Grievor filed a grievance in which he accused the Force of not having adequately informed him of the circumstances that he could expect to encounter at the location of his new posting. Therefore, he wanted the Force to pay his relocation costs. The Grievor later indicated that he believed that there was no residency requirement and that he had been misled in that regard.

There is no indication that a residency requirement had been properly approved for the detachment to which the Grievor was to be posted. Although a misleading impression may have been conveyed regarding that matter, there is no indication that bad faith was involved. The Grievor himself should have sought clarification as to whether the firm expectation that he reside in the detachment area was based on an approved residency requirement. He was not misled by the Force about the level of bilingualism in the area or the availability of suitable housing. However, he was remiss in not ensuring that he had sufficient information about the area prior to accepting the transfer.

The grievance should be denied.

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

On November 27, 2005, the Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the External Review Committee and denied the grievance.

With respect to the residency requirement, the Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was told that a residency requirement was in effect at the Tracadie Detachment. The argument that he was misinformed about a residency requirement and that such misinformation justifies cancelling his transfer failed.

As for the signed agreement, the Commissioner did not accept the Appellant's argument that the agreement in which he accepts full responsibility for the expenses related to his decision not to transfer to Tracadie was invalid because it was signed under duress. The Appellant was not only advised to consult with others and encouraged to take his time before making a decision, but he also benefited from the advice of a Staff Relations Representative prior to signing the agreement, the terms of which he had himself proposed.

Accordingly, the Commissioner denied the grievance.