Grievance Case Summary - G-369

The Grievor, who had been serving at an isolated post, was about to retire from the Force. He enquired as to his entitlement to two benefits upon retirement: (i) a reimbursable move to his last normal place of residence occupied before his isolated posting pursuant to the Isolated Posts Directive (IPD), and; (ii) a subsequent reimbursable move within two years to a location of his choice within Canada pursuant to the RCMP Relocation Directive (RD). The Grievor was of the view that he should be entitled to both these benefits upon retiring from the Force at an isolated post.

The Grievor was advised that he was only entitled to one reimbursable move upon retiring. The member grieved this decision on August 16, 2000, and moved to Eastern Canada in September, 2000 at Force expense.

Both the Grievance Advisory Board and the Level I Adjudicator concluded that the Grievor should be entitled to both an initial move out of isolation under the IPD, and a subsequent move within two years under the RD. However, the Force refused to implement the Level I decision.

The Committee found that the Grievor should have been entitled to both benefits. After reviewing the principles set out in the IPD and the RD, the Committee concluded that the purpose of each policy was distinct. The IPD intended to provide an additional benefit to a member at an isolated post who is leaving the Force by allowing for limited reimbursement of the costs of moving back to the normal place of residence. On the other hand, the RD entitlement provided members eligible for a pension with a two year opportunity to move to a retirement location after discharge. As a result, the Grievor was entitled to a relocation from his isolated post to his normal place of residence under the IRP, and then to a subsequent RD relocation to a retirement destination within two years.

The grievance should be allowed. However, the Committee does not recommend that the Grievor be entitled to monetary compensation or to a further move, as he had not shown that the Force's error had caused him to incur any additional expenses. However, the Committee recommends that the Commissioner apologize for the error, and that current policy be reviewed to be specific in regards to entitlements when members retire at isolated posts.

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

The Commissioner observed that properly made Level I decisions should be implemented even if they are considered wrong, inappropriate or otherwise objectionable. The CSO (Grievances) authorizes members who constitute Level I to decide grievances on behalf of the Force, and simple errors committed in exercising that authority should not normally affect the validity of their decisions. He also pointed out that grievors would likely be able to compel the implementation of such decisions by judicial means.

The Commissioner applied the test set out in grievance G-090, a case in which Commissioner Inkster stated, "...I would expect that Level I decisions in favour of Grievors would not be implemented in only rare circumstances where it is demonstrably evident that to do so could threaten the good administration of the Force." In the present case, the Commissioner concluded that the Acting Human Resources Officer's refusal to implement the Level I decision did not meet this test. The RCMP had twice previously provided similar benefits and to provide them a third time did not "threaten the good administration of the Force." The Commissioner also found that, in the circumstances of this case, RCMP officials were not bound by the interpretation of the IPD provided by the Treasury Board official. Pursuant to s. 79(1) of the RCMP Regulations, 1988, the Commissioner of the RCMP or his delegate has the discretion to authorize the payment of retirement relocation expenses in the manner and amount prescribed by the Treasury Board. The fact that both the Integrated Relocation Program and the Isolated Post Directive (since replaced by the IPGHD) also addressed retirement relocations did not alter this discretion. Finally, the Commissioner found that it was and is fair and appropriate to exercise discretion in this case, and furthermore, that the Grievor should have been given the benefit of the doubt in the interpretation of our policy. The grievance was allowed.

Remedy/Corrective Action

The Commissioner disagreed with the ERC on the issue of corrective action. In his view, whether the Grievor was financially disadvantaged was irrelevant to the issue of whether the Grievor was entitled to another relocation. The Commissioner observed that if the grievance process had completed its course prior to the Grievor's departure from the isolated post, he would have received this benefit. Therefore, he determined that the Grievor should be allowed to opt for a retirement move pursuant to the Relocation Directive, within two years of being served with the Level II grievance decision. The Commissioner noted that more than two years had passed since the date of the Grievor's discharge; however, the delay involved in the grievance process completing its course amounted to "exceptional circumstances". Pursuant to s. 79(2) of the Regulations, the payment of relocation expenses more than two years after the date of the Grievor's discharge is permitted where exceptional circumstances exist.