Grievance Case Summary - G-411

The Grievor is challenging a decision denying him a transfer allowance (TA) for the relocation of his home in an area situated less than 40 km from his previous place of residence.

The Grievor was transferred to a new workplace that was 47 km away from his previous place of work. He was told that if he moved in the new area, his move would be covered by the RCMP Integrated Relocation Program 2003 (IRP). Nonetheless, the Grievor chose to stay in the town he was living in and to commute to his new workplace.

The RCMP authorized the Grievor to move within a distance of less than 40 km as a documented operational requirement, so that the IRP would apply and his move be reimbursed. The Grievor believed that all the IRP provisions and the TA entitlement would be applicable to his move. He was denied, however, a TA due to the less than 40 km distance.

There were two documents at issue in determining whether the Grievor was entitled to a TA. In Treasury Board Minutes no. 796232 (TBM), effective January 1, 1985, TB approved a TA for members relocated under the provisions of the RCMP Relocation Directive, excluding retirement relocations, such that an entitlement exists to relocate at public expense. However, that same TBM stated that the TA would not be given for local area moves within the same metropolitan community and within commuting distance.

The RCMP Relocation Directive applicable in 1985 included a section that stated that normally relocations under 40 km would not be authorized, but reimbursement could be paid for moves under 40 km where there was a documented operational requirement for the relocation.

At the time that the TBM was issued, TB allowed for reimbursement of some local area moves under the applicable RCMP Relocation Directive. Yet, it stated that no TA would be paid for any local area move without exception. That is, whether or not, the local area move was reimbursed under the applicable RCMP Relocation Directive, the TA was not to be paid.

This shows that in 1985, the decision to not allow a TA for a local area move was a separate issue from whether or not reimbursement for a relocation of less than 40 km would be authorized. By the time of the Grievor's relocation, the IRP stated that the TA would not be paid for relocations under 40 km. This was still a section separate from the section allowing reimbursement for a move under 40 km where there was a documented operational requirement for the move. As with the TBM, it is categorical and without exception.

The Committee found that the policy clearly set out that while moves under 40 km can sometimes be reimbursed under the IRP, no TA can be paid.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance.

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

Acting Commissioner W. Sweeney denied the grievance, as recommended by the Committee. He agreed with the Committee that the IRP did not authorize the payment of a TA for a relocation under 40 km.

Acting Commissioner Sweeney noted in his decision that the use of Treasury Board Minutes in the resolution of grievances is most problematic, and that one should rely instead on the relevant Treasury Board and/or RCMP directives and policies. He explained that Treasury Board Minutes are deliberations of a Committee of Cabinet, i.e. Treasury Board. Pursuant to section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act, they are to be considered a privileged Cabinet Confidence if less than twenty years old. Acting Commissioner Sweeney cautioned that the RCMP as an agent of the Crown should not submit privileged Cabinet Confidences into evidence in a grievance process, unless the Privy Council Office has expressly approved their disclosure. He noted that the Minutes referenced by the Respondent in this matter dated back to 1984 and 1987. Although the privilege attached to those Cabinet Confidences may have still existed at the time they were first referenced by the Respondent, the privilege had seemingly expired by the time Acting Commissioner Sweeney considered the grievance in 2009. However, changes and amendments to these Minutes could have taken place in the previous twenty years, without the knowledge of the parties due to the privileged nature of these documents.