Grievance Case Summary - G-458

The RCMP decided to close a detachment. The Grievor chose to be transferred to another detachment, despite the three options offered by the RCMP. He later asked the RCMP to offer him early retirement under the Workforce Adjustment Policy (WFA) rather than a transfer. The RCMP refused the request and sent him a "transfer authorization." The Grievor filed an initial grievance concerning the transfer (the "first grievance"). The RCMP ordered him to report to the new workplace. Later, the Grievor requested permission to use an RCMP vehicle to travel to his new workplace. This request was refused. He filed a second grievance concerning travel expenses. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance; he defined the transfer as a permanent rather than an interim transfer and noted that the former workplace no longer existed. Therefore, Article D.17 of the RCMP Administration Manual on grievances ("AM II.38") and Article 3.C.1.o of the RCMP Career Manual ("CM") were not applicable. Moreover, the first grievance was not related to a lateral transfer; in fact, it was related to the RCMP's refusal to apply the WFA policy, and the uncertainty claimed about the detachment's closing was not convincing.

The ERC found that the grievance is consistent with those that can be referred to the ERC and cited past recommendations, for example ERC 2500-06-001 (G-442).

Citing the articles of the AM, WFA, and RCMP Travel Directive (AM VI.1), and recommendations ERC 2400-06-002 (G-432) and ERC 2500-06-001 (G-442), the ERC identified the three criteria required to allow travel expenses. Article D.17 of Chapter II.38 of the AM states that a member who is instructed to report to a new workplace following a transfer (grievance) is entitled to travel expenses pursuant to the travel directives until a decision regarding the grievance is rendered at the final level. When a member is transferred on an interim basis before the grievance regarding the transfer has been settled, the provisions of AM VI.1 and the two Treasury Board decisions - TB 704761 and TB 710531 - must be considered.

The ERC has indicated that the detailed provisions applicable are those related to travel of less than one day and that the file does not contain all of the information necessary to determine the reimbursable expenses to which the Grievor is entitled.

The ERC has determined that the grievance is, in fact, related to a lateral transfer, because the Grievor had asked that the RCMP give him permission to take an early retirement rather than a transfer. The ERC also noted that it concurred with the position of the Level I Adjudicator in that the arguments concerning the uncertainty of the detachment's closing were not convincing.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance and order the file returned to the persons authorized to determine the amount the Force will need to pay to the Grievor.

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

[TRANSLATION]

In a decision dated May 16, 2012, Commissioner Robert W. Paulson concurred with the ERC’s findings and recommendations. He allowed the grievance and returned the file to the Force’s appropriate authorities to have them calculate the refundable expenses to which the Grievor is entitled under the Travel Directive and to reimburse him as soon as possible.