Grievance Case Summary - G-523

The Grievor was transferred from an isolated post to a new post. During his time at the isolated post, he stored his own cars at the homes of various relatives. Those relatives agreed to deliver his cars to him at his new locale. An RCMP Relocation Reviewer gave the Grievor pre-approval to rent a vehicle at his new post, until such time as his first car was delivered. The Grievor did so. He incurred a $655.75 vehicle rental charge. The Force’s third party relocation contractor mistakenly paid this expense with money from the wrong funding envelope.

The relocation contractor advised the Grievor of the error. It also informed him that he was out of relocation funds, and that he had to repay the car rental fee. The Grievor submitted a business case in which he sought to be spared from absorbing that cost. The Force replied by seemingly rejecting his request. However, there was no written reply in the record. It was further unclear if the reply constituted a preliminary position, a final decision, or an acknowledgment that the Force did not actually have the authority to approve the Grievor’s request. The Grievor filed a grievance.

The Force discussed the situation with the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), which apparently supported the Force’s actions and “denied” the Grievor’s proposal. Yet parts of the exchanges between those two offices were not in the record. Several people represented the Force during the rest of the process. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that the Grievor lacked standing. In her view, the impugned decision was not made within the Force’s affairs. She reasoned that the Force did not have authority to allow the Grievor’s request, that the TBS had rejected his proposal, and that he was accordingly unable to grieve the decision.

The ERC noted that the identity of the responding party was unclear, and had to be resolved. It then found that the record did not contain sufficient information for the Level I Adjudicator to have made determinations about the content of the Force’s reply to the Grievor’s proposal. This meant that she could not have properly concluded if the Grievor had standing. The ERC also found that the Adjudicator acted in a manner inconsistent with procedural fairness by holding that the Grievor lacked standing, without first inviting submissions on that issue. The Grievor therefore did not have a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a decision was made. This affected his right to grieve a $655.75 payment order. Finally, the ERC found the Level I determination untenable as it was based on fundamental errors involving the context in which the disputed decision was rendered, the entity that was authorized to make it, and the entity that did in fact make it.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance, overturn the Level I decision, and send the matter back to Level I. It also recommended that he instruct the Level I Adjudicator request key documents, and to invite the parties to file submissions on the issue of standing. Lastly, it recommended that he confirm that the responding party at Level II is the Respondent, or appoint another person to that role.

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

The Commissioner allowed this grievance, agreeing with the ERC, in part. The ERC recommended that the Commissioner return the file to Level I to seek further submissions and render a new decision. Given the passage of time, however, the Commissioner found that it was in the best interest of the Grievor for him to render a decision on the issue of standing as well as the merits himself.

The Commissioner concluded that the Grievor had standing, as there was clearly a decision rendered by the Respondent which aggrieved the Grievor.

On the merits, the Commissioner found that the Grievor was entitled to have his car rental payment covered under the RCMP's Integrated Relocation Program, 2007, and that, in the unique circumstances of this case, the Grievor was not required to repay the funds even though they had been paid from the Core envelope.