Grievance Case Summary - G-530

The Grievor was transferred to a new locale. When he and his family arrived there, they moved into their own home and waited days before their household effects (HHE) were delivered. He filed a $1,200 “private accommodations and incidentals” claim covering that time. A Relocation Adviser (RA) reviewed the Force’s Integrated Relocation Program (IRP), and ascertained that it precluded such a payment in the situation. As a result, she concluded that she could not allow the claim. The Grievor later raised new information. He thought it supported his claim. The RA then sent the matter to the Departmental National Coordinator (DNC) for review. She explained that she was “not authorized to approve outside the IRP”. The DNC ultimately denied the claim.

The Grievor grieved the RA’s actions even though a case manager suggested that he may wish to grieve the DNC’s decision, and advised him how to do so. The Grievor asked the Force to pay his claim and to review the RA’s actions. Several months later, a Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. She held that he did not have standing, reasoning that the RA never rendered a decision. Rather, the RA determined that “the general application of policy did not allow” for a payment, reviewed the Grievor’s new information, and sent the file to the DNC for a final ruling. The Adjudicator also deemed the grievance premature. She explained that the DNC denied the Grievor's claim after the grievance was filed. She felt this was the real grievable decision, that it was unattributable to the RA, and that the Grievor did not merit an extension of time to grieve it.

The ERC concluded that the key question was whether or not the Grievor had been prejudiced by a “decision, act or omission” made by the RA. It found that the answer was yes, and that the Grievor thus had standing. The RA engaged in two acts that went to the heart of the case. First, she construed the IRP in a way that precluded her approval of the Grievor’s claim. Second, she sent the Grievor’s file to the DNC for consideration. These actions affected the Grievor personally. The ERC also found that the matter was not premature. It acknowledged that if the Grievor had intended to grieve the DNC’s decision, then the grievance may have been premature, as it predated that decision. Yet the Grievor rigidly maintained that he was contesting the RA’s actions. These crystallized weeks before he initiated his grievance.

The ERC further found that if the grievance against the RA were to succeed on the merits, then the only requested redress the Grievor could receive is a review of the RA’s actions. This was so because the DNC, not the RA, formally denied the Grievor’s claim. The Grievor chose not to grieve the DNC’s decision, which is now more than three years old. He also did not dispute the Level I Adjudicator’s refusal to award him an extension so he could grieve the DNC’s decision.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance and find that the Grievor had standing. As the parties have not been heard on the merits, it also recommended that the Commissioner quash the Level I decision, and return the case to Level I.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC's findings and recommendations. The Commissioner allowed the grievance on the preliminary issue of standing and ordered that the grievance be returned to Level I so that the grievance process could resume at that level.