Grievance Case Summary - G-384

Up to October 2000, the calculation of rents for isolated posts was determined under two Treasury Board policies, the Isolated Posts Directive ("IPD") and the Living Accommodation Charges Directive ("LACD"). From October 2000 to December 2000, a new Treasury Board policy came into effect, Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive ("2000 IPGHD"). This policy introduced a new way of calculating rents for isolated posts, and the Grievors were advised that their rents would be reduced. The rent reduction was short-lived, however, as the provisions that existed in the two separate policies prior to December 21, 2000, were reinstated. The Grievors were told that as a result of the revocation of the 2000 IPGHD, their rents would go back to the higher amount after a short notice period.

A newer version of the IPGHD, which contained a new method for calculating rents at isolated posts, was introduced for the entire public service effective April 1, 2003. However, the RCMP requested and received from Treasury Board a one year protection/extension under the IPD and the LACD to protect all members from the potential negative impact of the new IPGHD and to allow it to further study its implications.

The principal Grievor signed a grievance stating that he and other members of the Force were aggrieved by the decision of the RCMP requesting an extension of the IPD and the LACD because the new IPGHD provisions, if implemented, would have resulted in a significant rent decrease for members residing in various specific communities. The Level I Adjudicator ruled that the Grievors did not have standing.

The Committee found that the Grievors had standing. What was being grieved was the Force's decision to ask the Treasury Board for a one year extension from having to follow the new IPGHD; this was a policy choice made "in the administration of the affairs of the Force". There was no other redress provided by the Act, the Regulations or the Commissioner's Standing Orders. Also, the Grievors met the requirement of being aggrieved: they were all in rental accommodations in isolated posts at the time the grievance was presented, and they believed that they were being prejudiced financially by the Force's decision.

The Grievors claimed they were prejudiced by a Force decision to request Treasury Board to delay having a new policy for calculating rents at isolated posts apply to members. The file information does not support this contention. The file does not indicate what the rent calculations would have been under the new policy, and therefore, the Grievors have not shown on a balance of probabilities that they have suffered prejudice.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

The Commissioner rendered her decision in this matter, as summarized by her office:

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Grievors had standing to present the grievance and that the grievance should be denied on the merits. The Grievors benefited from a $212.66 monthly rent reduction under the 2000 IPGHD. The record, however, shows no comparative figures for the rent calculation under the new IPGHD. Without these figures, [the member] and the other Grievors did not prove on a balance of probabilities that they suffered a prejudice as a result of the Force's decision to request the one-year exemption.