Grievance Case Summary - G-541

In 2005, the Grievor was temporarily assigned out of his HQ to a new workplace (workplace A). The Grievor remained posted to his HQ. At first, the Grievor commuted to workplace A using a Force vehicle. Later in 2005, the Grievor moved to a rental unit closer to workplace A. The Grievor then requested a further move to workplace B which was about seventy kilometers away from his HQ. Respondent #1 was in the process of preparing a business case to create a permanent position for the Grievor at workplace B, and the Grievor started work at workplace B in late 2005. The Grievor still remained posted to his HQ. The Force allowed the Grievor to continue using a Force vehicle for commuting purposes. In 2006, the Grievor sold his home at the HQ location and purchased a home close to workplace B. In 2007, the Force formally transferred the Grievor to workplace B, and normally the Grievor would have been entitled to relocation benefits based on distance. However, Respondent #2 refused to reimburse the Grievor his relocation expenses for the 2006 move from HQ to workplace B, since this had taken place before the issuance of a formal transfer notice authorizing the move.

The Grievor grieved the decision not to reimburse his relocation expenses. He stated that he had been unsuccessful in obtaining a cost transfer prior to selling his home at HQ, and was also unsuccessful in obtaining an interview with Staffing and Personnel before the sale. He fully anticipated being reimbursed relocation expenses once he received his physical transfer to workplace B, which he understood in 2006 to be imminent based on the business case prepared by Respondent #1. Respondent #2, however, underscored that relocation policy did not allow for reimbursement of expenses incurred before written authorization had been received, and on this basis the Grievor was not entitled to reimbursement. The Level I Adjudicator agreed with Respondent #2 and denied the grievance.

Policy was very clear that under normal circumstances, pre-authorization was required for any relocation expenses. Although the Grievor knew that Respondent #1 was in the process of getting a position created for him at workplace B, this did not constitute pre-authorization. However, policy contemplated that in special circumstances, payment of relocation costs could be authorized by Treasury Board Secretariat in cases where pre-authorization had not been obtained. The special circumstances in this case included Respondent#1 accepting blame for the Grievor being insufficiently informed, and also the fact that the temporary work location changes lasted a significant amount of time. Required written notice, which might have assisted the Grievor in being better informed, was not issued upon his moves. The ERC also found that some provisions of the Treasury Board Travel Directive may well have been applicable to the Grievor's situation beginning in early 2005, when he started working at sites over 16 kilometers from his HQ.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance and find that the Grievor is entitled to be considered for reimbursement of his allowable relocation expenses. It further recommended that the Commissioner order a review to determine the amount of the reimbursement, and that the required approval be sought from TBS. In the alternative, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance and order that a review be conducted of the Grievor's file to determine if he is entitled to be reimbursed for allowable travel expenses incurred during the time he worked at workplaces A and B before his physical transfer was issued.

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

The Commissioner allowed this grievance, pertaining to the reimbursement of relocation expenses under the RCMP's Integrated Relocation Program, 2007 (“IRP”), where such costs were incurred prior to an official transfer.

While the IRP outlines that express authorization is generally necessary prior to the incurring of relocation expenses, there are circumstances under which pre-authorization is not required. The Commissioner found that, in the special circumstances of this case, subsequent authorization of expenses was possible under the IRP, subject to the approval by Treasury Board Secretariat (“TBS”).

Specifically, in this case, the Respondent accepted responsibility for not fully informing the Grievor of the requirements under the IRP. In addition, it was unusual for the Grievor to have to endure a “temporary” worksite change for two and a half years. Further, the Grievor made efforts to consult with Relocation Services as well as Staffing and Personnel but did not receive replies and was not able to set up a meeting as requested.

As there was insufficient information in the file to indicate the amount of exact expenses incurred by the Grievor, the Commissioner directed that a review be conducted to determine the amount of the reimbursement, and that the required approval be sought from TBS.

In the alternative, should TBS not grant approval, the Commissioner directed that a review be conducted of the Grievor's file to determine if he is entitled to be reimbursed for allowable travel expenses incurred during the time he worked in Nanaimo and Chemainus before his official transfer was issued.