Grievance Case Summary - G-527

The Grievor received a transfer notice informing him that he was being transferred to a position in another city. He then informed his Career Counsellor (CC) that he listed his house for sale. Rather than recommending that the Grievor contact Relocation Services, the CC simply acknowledged receipt of the e-mail. The Grievor later contacted his CC a number of times to provide additional information about the sale of his residence. In the end, the Grievor paid a 7% realtor commission fee. Afterwards, the CC advised the Grievor to contact the Division’s Relocation Services, which he did. He finally received an information package from the third-party service provider. However, he learned only a number of months after informing his CC about the sale of his house that the maximum rate of reimbursement for realtor commission fees was 5%. The Grievor then made a claim for reimbursement of the 2% difference between the commission he had paid and the rate provided in the applicable policy. His claim was sent to the Respondent so that he could request special authorization from the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). The TBS refused his claim.

The Grievor filed a grievance concerning reimbursement of the difference between the commission he had paid and the rate allowed under the policy. He stated that he entered into a contract to pay a 7% commission fee as the result of a lack of information at the time he had to sell his house. The Respondent stated that, had the Grievor complied with the applicable policy, he would have had a formal consultation, and this situation would not have occurred. The Respondent also noted that he did not have the authority to approve exceptions to the policy, because that type of decision was the responsibility of TBS. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. She determined that the final decision had not been made by the Force, but rather by the TBS. Consequently, she found that the Grievor did not have standing.

The applicable policy clearly states that a member cannot be reimbursed for realtor commission fees exceeding the rate negotiated, and that any unauthorized expenses had to be approved by the TBS. Because the Grievor incurred an expense that was not authorized, the Force sent a request to the TBS and it was refused. The decision at issue is one made by the TBS, not the Force. Therefore, the Grievor did not have standing. The ERC noted that by denying the grievance, the Level I Adjudicator made a determination on standing without giving the parties an opportunity to present their arguments. However, although the parties could have raised this issue at Level II, they did not. In addition, the decision at issue in the grievance was clearly not a decision made by the Force, and referring it back to Level I so the parties can be heard would only generate additional delays. For these reasons, the ERC did not recommend to the RCMP Commissioner that he refer the file back to Level I.

However, given the deficiencies in the Force’s treatment of the Grievor’s file, the ERC did recommend to the RCMP Commissioner that an apology be made to the Grievor for the handling of his relocation.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance and offer apologies to the Grievor.

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

[TRANSLATION]

In keeping with the ERC's recommendation, the Commissioner denied the grievance, as the Grievor, who was contesting a decision by the Treasury Board Secretariat, did not have standing. The Commissioner, however, apologized to the Grievor on behalf of the RCMP for the manner in which his relocation was managed.

In addition, the Commissioner refused to consider an additional argument that the Grievor attempted to submit to the Commissioner after the ERC had released its report.