Grievance Case Summary - G-640

In the autumn of 1997, the Grievor was serving at an RCMP detachment and living in a nearby city with his spouse and young children. The Grievor was offered potentially better paying jobs within the Force, including a transfer to a limited duration isolated post at which he was assured by local supervisors that a Living Cost Differential (LCD) was available. The Grievor accepted a transfer to the isolated post in 1998, largely in light of the LCD. However, unbeknownst to the Grievor, the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) cancelled the LCD for the isolated post days before his transfer, pursuant to its authority to do so under the Isolated Posts Directive (IPD). The Grievor did not receive an LCD at the isolated post. The Grievor learned in 2007 that the TBS had reinstated an LCD for the isolated post in 2002/3. He promptly inquired into whether he could receive a retroactive LCD for his years of service at the isolated post. RCMP National Compensation Services responded that he was ineligible to receive the benefit.

The Grievor initiated a grievance. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that two of the Grievor's positions were untimely and that his other positions lacked merit. The Grievor filed a Level II grievance, in support of which he offered for the first time email messages that he states confirm that he did not learn of the revocation of the LCD for the isolated post prior to his transfer.

The ERC found that all of the Grievor's arguments should be addressed in full but that the email evidence filed by the Grievor for the first time at Level II was inadmissible and should not be considered by the Commissioner when making his decision. However, the ERC accepted the point the Grievor was trying to make with the emails, as that point was undisputed.

The ERC found that neither party identified any provision of Isolated Post policy which permitted the retroactive payment of the LCD requested by the Grievor. The Grievor was transferred to the isolated post after the TBS revoked the LCD. Therefore, pursuant to the IPD, he was deemed to have received notice of the revocation. Although local superiors told the Grievor that an LCD was available at the isolated post – information that was correct at the time – no member could vary the terms of the IPD. It is unfortunate that the superiors were not in a position to give the Grievor accurate information. Nevertheless, the Grievor was obligated to consult Compensation Services personnel, who were the experts in the area but who had no advanced knowledge of his transfer, to determine the benefits available to him. The presence or absence of reasons for which the TBS opted to revoke the LCD at the isolated post is not relevant to the question of whether there was any authority for the Force to make a retroactive payment of the LCD to the Grievor. Lastly, as the revocation of the LCD applied to all members and public servants posted at the isolated post during the relevant period, it was not discriminatory, absent further evidence.

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

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Grievor challenged the Force's refusal to pay him a retroactive living cost differential (LCD) for his years of service at an isolated limited duration post (LDP). He had received assurances from local supervisors prior to accepting the post that the LCD was available. He was not aware that the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) had cancelled the LCD for the post shortly before his transfer. In 2007, he learned that the LCD had been reinstated at the post. He requested retroactive LCD for his years there and was told that he was ineligible.

Level I denied the grievance on the merits.

The Commissioner accepted the ERC's recommendations and found that the Grievor was ineligible for the LCD, and the RCMP did not have the authority pay it. The RCMP was bound by the TBS decision.