Grievance Case Summary - G-528

The Grievor was issued a transfer from one isolated post to another isolated post. The Force’s third party relocation service purportedly advised him that the shipment of his effects was within the weight limit prescribed by policy. Yet months after his move, on April 19, 2011, the Force told him he owed $523.73 because his shipped effects were overweight. He refused to pay.

The parties discussed the matter over the ensuing weeks. During that time, the Force allegedly told the Grievor “not to forward any payment at this time as there were other members having similar difficulties”. The Force also apparently informed him that his “file would be reviewed”, and that he would “be made aware of [the Force’s] findings” shortly. The Respondent did not contest this version of events. On June 17, 2011, the Grievor received a final payment notice.

The Grievor filed a grievance on June 23, 2011. A Level I Adjudicator denied it on the ground that it was presented after the 30-day statutory limitation period had expired. She found that the Grievor learned about the disputed decision on April 19, 2011, that he should have known he was aggrieved that day, and that the Force’s final payment notice in June 2011 was merely a re-statement of the decision. She also highlighted the principle that once a grievable decision is made, a Grievor cannot renew a limitation period simply by seeking a review of that decision.

The ERC noted that “a decision made after a review of an initial decision can be grievable in its own right ... [t]his occurs when for the review, new information [is] presented so that the matter is ... considered in a whole new light”. The ERC found that new information placed the Force’s April 19, 2011 decision in a whole new light. Put simply, the Force indicated that it was rethinking the decision, that the decision might not stand, and that the decision ought not to be followed, at least without further notice. Moreover, the fact that the Force appears to have concurrently re-examined similar decisions involving others suggested that its review may not have been attributable to the Grievor. It could have arisen from the Force’s own choice to scrutinize a wider course of action affecting many individuals. As a result, the Force’s June 17, 2011 affirmation of its decision was a new grievable decision. It reset the time limit for grieving. The Grievor’s June 23, 2011 grievance accordingly fell well within the statutory limitation period.

The ERC also found that if the Commissioner of the RCMP disagreed with this conclusion, then an extension of the limitation period would be justified. Upon applying the relevant test, the ERC determined that this was so for various reasons. The Grievor disputed the Force’s position from the outset. He offered a reasonable and unchallenged explanation for his delay in grieving. He grieved the decision once it was affirmed. Moreover, the delay would not have prejudiced the Respondent.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance, and order that the case be returned to Level I for submissions, and a decision, on the merits.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the grievance was presented at Level I within the limitation period. The Commissioner allowed the grievance in part on that basis and ordered that the grievance be returned to Level I so that the grievance process could resume at that level.