Grievance Case Summary - G-611

In early 2005, the Grievor was told that the section in which she worked would be physically moving to a new location within the same metropolitan area. The Grievor was informed that she could qualify for relocation benefits if she wished to move closer to the new work location. The Grievor advised her supervisor that she wished to attempt commuting to the new location first, after which she might apply for a relocation move. No Transfer Notice was issued to the Grievor, although she was notified in writing of the change of office location. The office moved in April, 2006. In January of 2007, the Grievor purchased an apartment in the same metropolitan area but did not seek a paid relocation.

The Grievor commuted to the new work location from April to August of 2006 and from October 2006 to February 2009. In March, 2009, approximately three years after the Grievor's office moved, the Grievor submitted two expense claims (Claims) for commuting with her own vehicle to work at the new location. The Claims covered a period beginning in April 2007, one year after her office had moved, and ending in February 2009. The Respondent denied the Claims.

The Grievor submitted a Level I grievance, taking the position that because no Transfer Notice had been issued, her commute to and from the new office was operational travel to a temporary workplace for which she was entitled to benefits under the RCMP Travel Directive (RCMP TD). The Grievor also relied on section 1.04 of the RCMP Integrated Relocation Policy (RCMP IRP) which states that a member ordered to report for duty within 90 days of being notified of a transfer is considered to be on travel status. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the merits.

The ERC disagreed with the argument that the Grievor's commute fell within the provisions of the RCMP TD. The Grievor had not been required to travel on government business and the commuting during the period covered by the claims was a result of the Grievor's decision not to accept a paid relocation. Neither the RCMP TD nor the National Joint Council Travel Directive (NJC TD) applied to authorise reimbursement of the Claims. As well, the Grievor had failed to obtain pre-authorization for the commuting expenses as recommended or required by applicable policies and there were no exceptional circumstances which would have justified post-authorization of the expenses. Although a provision in the NJC TD allowed employees to claim travel status when they were assigned to a temporary workplace, the record did not show that the new office location was temporary within the meaning of that provision. Finally, while the RCMP IRP contemplated a three-month commuting allowance for relocated members in certain circumstances, the applicable provision did not apply to the Grievor because its intent was to assist members who were seriously considering relocating. The Grievor had not established that the purpose of the commuting, in the time period covered by the Claims, was to determine if she wished to move.

The ERC also considered whether section 1.04 of the RCMP IRP was applicable. The provision gave travel status to members who were ordered to report to a new location within a 90-day period after being notified of a move. The Grievor suggested that her travel status had extended on indefinitely as the Force failed to issue a Transfer Notice. In the ERC's view, section 1.04 did not apply to the Grievor as the first of her Claims pertained to a period beginning in April 2007, a date well beyond the initial 90-day period referred to in the provision.

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

The Grievor withdrew her grievance before the Commissioner could render a decision in this matter.