Grievance Case Summary - G-604

In June 2008, the Grievor was issued a Notice of Transfer authorizing a cost transfer and advising that he would be relocated to another province. A few days later a relocation file was created for the Grievor. The Grievor's spouse and two dependents were relocating with him. Their home was listed for sale in either June or July of that year but it did not sell quickly.

The Grievor contacted a school official in the new province who highly recommended that his children start school on time in August in order to reduce any further credit losses due to transfer issues between provinces and to minimize the possibility of failure to graduate on time for the Grievor's eldest child. The Grievor booked a return flight for his spouse to travel for the purpose of finding interim accommodations for their children and registering them for school. The Grievor also booked one-way flights for his children. The Grievor did not book these flights through the government contracted travel service (GCTS) as, at the time, this was not a House Hunting Trip (HHT) or any other specified relocation situation.

In August 2008, the Grievor's home sold and he received authorization for an HHT. The Grievor's spouse was at the airport for her flight back when the Grievor advised her of the HHT approval and that he would be joining her. She changed her flight, incurring a flight change charge, and began house-hunting.

The Grievor made a business case claiming exceptional circumstances and requesting payment from the Core Envelope of the air travel for his spouse and dependants. The Respondent denied the request on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify why the Grievor could not make the travel arrangements with the GCTS. The Grievor filed a grievance against this decision. During the early resolution phase, the Respondent contacted Treasury Board (TB). As a result of communications with TB, the Respondent felt that she did not have financial authority to approve reimbursement because that authority rests with Treasury Board, and because there were no provisions under the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) for the Grievor's particular situation. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the merits on the basis that the Grievor had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances and the Respondent could not override the IRP.

The ERC found that, as TB did not undertake an analysis of whether the Grievor's circumstances constituted exceptional circumstances for purposes of the IRP, it rendered no decision on this issue. As a result, this grievance is not moot.

At the time of the events giving rise to the grievance, the applicable IRP was the 2007 IRP. In the spring of 2009, TB directed the Force to apply the 2008 IRP retroactively to all relocation files created within a certain time frame, one of which was the Grievor's. Exceptionally and in light of TB's direction to the Force, the ERC reviewed the grievance pursuant to the provisions of the 2008 IRP. It found that the Grievor's circumstances were exceptional and the expenses fell within the central intent of the IRP.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance.

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

The Grievor presented a grievance against a decision to refuse the payment of expense claims that he filed for his dependants in relation to a relocation. The Respondent argued that the Grievor did not book airline tickets for his spouse and children through the Government's Contracted Travel Services and therefore was not entitled to reimbursement. The Grievor contended that the Respondent did not consider the exceptional circumstances that the Grievor faced. Level I denied the grievance. The Commissioner considered the exceptional circumstances that were present in this grievance and accepted the ERC recommendation to allow the grievance.