Grievance Case Summary - G-638

The Grievor was a newly engaged member of the RCMP at the time of the events relevant to the grievance. His first post with the Force necessitated a relocation by the Grievor and the sale of his principal residence. The Grievor asked for an extension of the permitted relocation period. The extension was granted on condition that the relocation would be door-to-door, involving no storage of his belongings. The Force relied on Part 9.5 of the RCMP Financial Management Manual (Relocation) (FMM 9.5). The Grievor recalled being warned that, if a storage cost was incurred during the shipment of his belongings, he would have to pay that cost. There was a delay in the closing date of the purchase of the Grievor's new residence and the Grievor's household effects were briefly held in storage by the Force's mover. Subsequently, the Grievor was informed that he owed a significant amount for the costs of storage (and associated handling and delivery) of his belongings during their shipment. The Grievor took the position that he had been informed he may have to pay storage costs but he was now being charged for other relocation costs.

The Grievor filed a grievance grieving the decision of the Force to require the Grievor to pay the costs of storage, warehousing, handling and delivery of his belongings. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that the Grievor both filed his grievance beyond the expiry of the limitation period for so doing and failed to demonstrate an entitlement to a retroactive extension of the limitation period. No decision was rendered on the merits of the grievance. The Grievor resubmitted his grievance at Level II.

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(b), (c), or (e), as those subsections all deal with subjects which were not at issue. Although the grievance concerned the payment of relocation expenses, it did not relate to the Force's interpretation and application of the RCMP Relocation Directive (subsection 36(d)), as the Relocation Directive expressly excluded from its scope of application newly engaged members relocating to their first place of employment with the Force.

The other type of referable grievance, described in subsection 36(a) of the 1988 Regulations, involves matters relating to “the Force's interpretation and application of government policies that apply to government departments and that have been made to apply to members”. The ERC found that the present grievance fell outside the ambit of subsection 36(a) as its subject-matter related to a decision by the Respondent to require the Grievor, a newly engaged member of the Force, to pay for certain storage and related costs involved in his relocation to his first posting. The only policy applicable to the grievance and that either party relied on was FMM 9.5, an internal RCMP policy and not a government-wide policy. No other government policy contemplated by subsection 36(a) was identified as relevant to the grievance.

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

The ERC returned the file to the RCMP to be addressed by the responsible office(s) within the Force.