Grievance Case Summary - G-618

In October 2003, the Grievor was transferred from [A] to [B]. This was a cost transfer. Upon his arrival in [B], he was informed that a grievance had been lodged regarding his promotion. The next day, the Force contacted the Grievor and advised that someone else would be promoted to [B]. The Grievor was offered the same position in another detachment in [C] and he accepted this change. His transfer notice (A-22A) was amended to describe a transfer from [A] to [C] and his household goods and effects, which were en route, were diverted to [C]. The Grievor moved to [C] twenty (20) days later. The Grievor received one transfer allowance.

In 2008, the Force initiated the Retroactive Corrective Payment of Relocation Benefits Project. The objective of the Project was to correct discrepancies in the treatment of members caused by inconsistent interpretations of the “cost” transfer criteria of the Treasury Board Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) between 2001 and 2008. The Grievor applied to have his transfer from Baker Lake to Hall Beach reviewed under the Project. The Grievor was of the view that, as he had reported for duty in Baker Lake, his transfer to Hall Beach was a separate transfer that entitled him to a second transfer allowance. The review team determined that the Grievor was ineligible to participate in the Project as he had not received an A-22A indicating a transfer from Baker Lake to Hall Beach. Rather, there was one transfer which indicated that his destination location was amended. The Grievor grieved this decision.

The ERC observed that five types of grievances are referable to the ERC, in accordance with subsections 36(a) to (e) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988. It found that the present grievance did not fall within the scope of subsections 36(d) (Relocation Directive). The grievance does not involve the Force's interpretation of the IRP itself but rather the interpretation and application of a separate, internal initiative undertaken by the Force.

The grievance is not referable to the ERC. As a result, the ERC does not have the legal authority to further review the matter or make any findings or recommendations.

The Commissioner agreed that the grievance was not referable to the ERC and sent the grievance to the appropriate Level II decision-maker.