Grievance Case Summary - G-464

The RCMP decided to close a detachment. The Grievor elected to be transferred to another detachment. He later asked that the RCMP offer him an early retirement under the workforce adjustment policy. The RCMP denied the request and sent him a "transfer authorization." The Grievor presented a first grievance (first grievance). After being ordered to report to his new workplace, the Grievor requested permission to use an RCMP vehicle to travel to his new workplace. This request was denied, and the Grievor presented a second grievance (second grievance). The Grievor reported to work at the new detachment and submitted a written claim for reimbursement of his travel expenses. The Respondent denied the claim. The Grievor presented this grievance in May 2005. The Respondent maintained that its decision to deny the claim for reimbursement was based on the January 2005 decision of the Officer-in-Charge in an earlier travel expense claim submitted by the Grievor. This grievance addressed the same management decision as the second grievance. In his response, the Grievor reiterated that he was entitled to a reimbursement for travel expenses he incurred to get to his new workplace until the first grievance was settled. The Level I Adjudicator denied this grievance, finding that the Grievor failed to comply with the thirty-day time limit set out at paragraph 31(2)(a) of the Act. The Grievor presented a Level II grievance.

The ERC determined that it had jurisdiction to hear this grievance. It also found that the Grievor failed to comply with the time limit prescribed by the Act to present his Level I grievance. The ERC recommended that the RCMP Commissioner dismiss the possibility of extending the time limit under subsection 47.4(1) of the Act, because the issue in the grievance is identical to the issue in the second grievance presented by the Grievor. Consequently, settlement of that grievance will also settle the issues raised by the Grievor in this grievance. For the same reasons, the ERC acknowledged that the lack of opportunity at Level I to present the points of view of the Grievor and Respondent on the issue of time limit did not affect this grievance adversely.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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.