Grievance Case Summary - G-557

The Force published a Transfer Notice indicating that the Grievor had been given a promotional transfer requiring a move. The Grievor later informed the Force that he owned one vehicle, and that he intended to buy a second vehicle before moving. A Force relocation official advised the Grievor that he could recover the mileage cost of moving one vehicle only. She explained that relocation entitlements crystallized the day a Transfer Notice was published, and that he owned only one vehicle on that date. Months later, he bought a second vehicle, relocated it to his new post and claimed the mileage cost incurred. A Force relocation reviewer denied the expense.

The Grievor asked if there was a policy which supported her decision. No policy was cited. He then pointed to a related online frequently asked question that seemingly contradicted what he had been told. He felt it indicated that the mileage cost for a second vehicle was payable. The relocation reviewer disagreed. Yet she conceded that she had not seen the information before. She surmised that the information related to the purchase or replacement of a first vehicle. She also said the information would be clarified online. She further explained that, in accordance with relocation policy, the Force did not have to cover expenses arising from misinterpretations.

The next day, the Grievor grieved the refusal of his mileage claim. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. She held that it was filed outside the 30-day statutory time limit. She found that the time limit started running when the Grievor learned that he could not receive a mileage cost for moving a second vehicle, and not months later when his claim for that expense was refused. She added that when the Grievor filed his expense claim, he provided no new information which would have placed the original decision in a whole new light. She reasoned that he accordingly could not have had a legitimate expectation that the original decision would be reconsidered.

The ERC found that when the Grievor claimed a second vehicle mileage cost months after being informed that such a cost would not be paid, he did provide new information, namely: the reply to a related online frequently asked question. The apparent inconsistencies between that information and the initial decision placed the matter in a whole new light, created a legitimate expectation that the relocation reviewer would reopen the decision, and indeed led her to reopen the decision. She reconsidered the circumstances, taking into account the new information the Grievor had provided her, and ultimately determined that the original decision would stand. As a result, a new time limit started running. The Grievor presented his Level I grievance the following day, which was well within the statutory limitation period for so doing.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he find that the grievance was timely, and that he return the matter to Level I so that it may proceed on the merits.

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

In a preliminary decision on the timeliness of the grievance presentation, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the grievance was presented at Level I within the thirty-day statutory time limit In the interest of time, the Commissioner decided to rule on the merits of the grievance, rather than return the case to Level I. He directed the parties to present their written submissions on the substantive issues involved in the grievance.

The grievance was subsequently withdrawn.