Grievance Case Summary - G-475

The Grievor is a civilian member. Her husband was a regular member until he retired in 1991. In 1992, he took a paid retirement move to a retirement location, where the Grievor joined him. She worked at a RCMP office there until it closed in 1998. She then accepted a transfer to a new area, and her husband went with her. By 2005, she wanted to retire to another location.

The Grievor asked the Force if it would reimburse expenses for her planned retirement move, in accordance with Appendix VI-2-1 to Chapter VI.2 of the RCMP's then Administration Manual (2005 Integrated Relocation Program Appendix). In the Force's view, that policy provided for only one retirement move per family. The Grievor conceded that she had read the policy, and that her husband had taken a retirement move. However, she claimed that the relocation authorities in effect when her husband retired did not provide for only one retirement move per family. She also asserted that she left her husband's retirement area because she otherwise would have been out of a job. The Respondent rejected the Grievor's request for a publicly funded retirement move on the sole ground that her husband had already benefited from one.

The Grievor submitted a Level I grievance, which was later denied. The Level I Adjudicator found that the 2005 Integrated Relocation Program Appendix allowed for only one retirement relocation per family. He held that the Grievor was therefore not entitled to a funded retirement move under that authority, given her husband's prior retirement relocation at public expense. He also held that nothing in the record supported her claim that key requirements were not in effect when her spouse retired. He concluded that the Grievor was treated justly and equitably.

The ERC observed that this was an unusual situation involving a narrow set of circumstances. It found that the Grievor's position had merit. When the Grievor's husband retired, relocation policy did not clearly provide for only one retirement relocation allowance per family. She thus could not have known that her spouse's acceptance of a retirement relocation allowance in 1992 would relinquish her ability to receive one in 2005. Moreover, the ERC was not convinced that the 2005 Integrated Relocation Program Appendix barred the Grievor from receiving retirement relocation expenses. The relevant limiting provisions of that authority were forward-looking. They applied to retiring members whose spouses were "serving member[s] ... eligible for a retirement move". The Grievor's spouse was neither. Lastly, the ERC found that the Grievor transferred out of her husband's retirement location in 1998 to avoid losing her job.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow this grievance. It also recommended that he permit the reimbursement of any requested retirement relocation expenses which the Grievor is otherwise eligible to receive under the 2005 Integrated Relocation Program Appendix.

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

In a decision dated April 13, 2012, the Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the ERC.