Grievance Case Summary - G-442

The Grievor accepted a lateral transfer to a new detachment in late 2003. At that time, he had three outstanding grievances that involved prior transfer matters. A year later, the Grievor submitted a substantial claim for meal, accommodation and other expenses that he had incurred at his new detachment. The Respondent denied the Grievor's expense claim.

The Grievor filed a Level I grievance. He argued that the Force had to reimburse his claim. He relied on policy provisions that entitled members to financial benefits following an order to proceed to a new post, temporarily, pending the resolution of a lateral transfer grievance.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He found that the policy provisions at issue did not apply in the circumstances. This was so because the Grievor had not actually grieved his 2003 lateral transfer. To establish that point, the Level I Adjudicator researched, and produced a detailed list of, the Grievor's entire grievance record. The Level I Adjudicator then went a step further. He found that the Grievor tried to mislead the Force into paying him a lot of money to which he was not entitled. He also directed that the matter be referred for investigation, both in relation to a possible criminal offence as well as a violation of the RCMP Code of Conduct.

The Committee agreed that the policy provisions the Grievor relied on in support of having his claim reimbursed did not apply in the circumstances. It found that they could apply only if the Grievor had grieved his 2003 lateral transfer. Yet the Grievor did not do that. It noted that the Grievor's prior transfer grievances were unrelated to his 2003 transfer.

The Committee also found that the Level I Adjudicator overstepped the bounds of his authority. He did that by reaching conclusions that the Grievor made his claim on false pretenses and attempted to mislead the Force, and by referring the file for investigation. The Committee further found that it was wrong for the Level I Adjudicator to list in his reasons for decision every grievance ever presented by the Grievor with details about their subjects and outcomes.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he deny the grievance. It also recommended that the Commissioner: (1) find that the Level I Adjudicator erred when he concluded that the Grievor was guilty of wrongdoing in relation to his travel expense claim; (2) attach that finding as an addendum to the Level I decision; and, (3) transmit his decision and addendum to those having conduct of any investigation that resulted from the Level I decision, if such an investigation is still ongoing. It further recommended that the Commissioner order that the Level I decision be amended by removing the detailed list of all of the grievances ever presented by the Grievor

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

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations and denied the grievance. The Commissioner found that the Grievor was not entitled to the reimbursement of his expense claim, as the policy provisions that the Grievor relied on did not apply to the circumstances of this case.

The Grievor did not grieve his lateral transfer, nor was he ordered to proceed to his new posting on a temporary basis pending the resolution of such a grievance. Furthermore, the Career Management Manual (section 3.G.3.a) directs members to "not start any relocation procedures if you have not received written notification of your permanent transfer, or if your transfer is temporary." Had the Grievor believed that his transfer was temporary, he was prohibited from commencing any relocation procedures. However, relocation procedures were indeed initiated by the Grievor. The Grievor requested, and subsequently received, all applicable benefits in terms of relocation entitlements for his transfer. Therefore, the Grievor could not also be compensated for meals, accommodations and incidental expenses while living in his new residence, under the guise of temporary travel status pending the outcome of a transfer grievance.

The Commissioner further found that the Level I Adjudicator overstepped the bounds of his authority when he not only referred the file for investigation, but also reached conclusions that the Grievor had made the claim on false pretenses and had attempted to mislead the Force. Such findings were based on incomplete information, particularly since the Adjudicator did not allow the Grievor to make submissions on these issues. This was a violation of the Grievor's right to procedural fairness. There should have been no conclusions of possible wrongdoing, without first giving the Grievor the opportunity to respond to such allegations. Accordingly, the Commissioner agreed with the Committee that the Level I Adjudicator erred when he concluded that the Grievor was guilty of wrongdoing in relation to his travel expense claim. To address this issue, the Commissioner directed the Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG) to attach his Level II decision as an addendum to the Level I decision,

The Commissioner further agreed with the Committee that it was wrong for the Level I Adjudicator to list or discuss all of the Grievor's other grievances. Not only were those other grievances clearly irrelevant to the present grievance, but the Level I Adjudicator breached the Grievor's rights to confidentiality respecting his grievances. The Commissioner found that the most appropriate way to address this was to direct the OCG to vet the Level I decision by whiting out or blacking out the detailed list of all of the other grievances presented by the Grievor.