Grievance Case Summary - G-619

G-619

In October 2006, the Grievor was transferred from detachment [A] to detachment [B], a newly established detachment. His transfer notice (A-22A) indicated that it was a permanent no-cost lateral transfer. The Grievor did not relocate his place of residence closer to the new detachment. The Grievor explained that he would pick up a police vehicle at detachment [A] and report for duty at detachment [B].

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 detachment [A] to detachment [B] reviewed under the Project. The review team determined that the Grievor was ineligible to participate in the Project as his transfer was temporary. Members transferred to detachment [B] were not expected to relocate there. The Grievor grieved this decision. The Level I Adjudicator found that although the Grievor's A-22A indicated that it was a permanent transfer, the evidence on the record indicated that it was in fact a temporary transfer.

ERC Findings

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.

ERC Recommendation dated May 19, 2016

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 a recommendation.

Commissioner of the RCMP Decision

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

Page details

Date modified: