Grievance Case Summary - G-609

The Grievor received no-cost transfers in 2005 and 2006. In 2010, the Force initiated the Retroactive Corrective Payment of Relocation Benefits project (Project) to correct previous inconsistent interpretations and applications of the 40 kilometre rule contained in the Force’s Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) policies. Under this Project, two of the Grievor’s transfers were re-assessed. In separate decisions issued in April 2012 and August 2012, the Project team notified the Grievor of the benefits he would receive for his 2006 and for his 2005 transfer. Both times he was advised that he was not eligible for a transfer allowance.

The Grievor responded to the first decision on August 16, 2012. He responded to the second decision on September 24, 2012, asking the Project team for clarification regarding his ineligibility for a transfer allowance. In October 2012, the Grievor signed off on the accuracy of his eligible benefits. On November 4 and 5, 2012, the Grievor requested reconsiderations of the transfer allowance decisions. At no time did he provide any new information for consideration. After the Grievor received his benefits, the Project team issued two separate emails on November 14, 2012 confirming that the previous decisions were final. The Grievor again requested reconsiderations on December 6, 2012. On December 12, 2012, the Project team reiterated that the decisions were final. On January 10, 2013, the Grievor presented a grievance against the December 12, 2012 communication. The Respondent challenged the timeliness of the Grievor’s presentation.

The Grievor acknowledged having received earlier correspondence that made him aware of the Project team’s initial position, but argued that the earlier communications were part of an ongoing exchange of correspondence in which he was seeking clarification of the Project team’s conclusions as he believed their interpretation of the IRP was mistaken. He argued that the limitation period did not begin to run until December 12, 2012 because that is when he realized he was aggrieved. He also argued that any delay in presenting the grievance was caused by the Project team’s refusal to respond in any meaningful way to his requests for clarification of the initial decisions.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that it was not presented in time. The Level I Adjudicator also found that there were no grounds for retroactively extending the time limit.

The ERC agreed with the Level I Adjudicator that the grievance was not presented in time. The ERC found that the Grievor knew or ought to have known he was aggrieved well over 30 days prior to the date he filed his grievance. The fact that the Grievor was contesting the decisions informally did not impact the limitation period for the presentation of his grievance.

The ERC also agreed that there was no justification to recommend that the Commissioner retroactively extend the Level I time limit. The ERC disagreed with the Grievor’s contention that the Project team contributed to his delay in grieving as the Project team had responded reasonably promptly to his inquiries. His first request for clarification and detailed challenges were not made until well after the thirty-day time limits had expired for each of the decisions and there were also a number of unexplained delays on the Grievor’s part.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance on the basis that it was not presented at Level I in time.

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

The Grievor presented a grievance after being denied the Transfer Allowance for his two relocations. The Respondent challenged the time limitation period in which the Grievor presented the grievance. The Grievor contended he was trying to resolve the matter informally and was not fully aggrieved until he was unsuccessful at convincing the Respondent to reconsider the decision. Level I denied the grievance. The Commissioner considered the preliminary issue of time limitation and accepted the ERC recommendation to deny the grievance based on the Grievor's failure to meet the 30 day statutory time limit and to establish extenuating circumstances to support a time limit extension.