Grievance Case Summary - G-645

The Grievor retired from the Force and relocated to a different province. He recalled the moving company used by the Force's relocation contractor (Mover) advising him that his effects would be shipped and delivered to his new home on June 11, 2012 with no storage fees. The Grievor arrived at his new home on June 8, 2012. His effects were delivered by the Mover on June 11, 2012. On July 19, 2012, he received an email from an RCMP Relocation Reviewer (RR) stating that the Mover had arrived in the Grievor's new locale on June 8, 2012 and stored his effects in the moving van until June 11 at a cost to be paid by the Grievor pursuant to a Force Relocation Policy. The Grievor provided the RR further details about his move. On August 3, 2012, the RR sent the new information to the Relocation Policy Centre, which was overseen by the Respondent. On August 16, 2012, the Grievor received an email from the RR indicating that the Policy Centre had decided the Grievor must pay the storage cost. The Grievor made informal attempts to have that decision overturned through October 2012.

On October 10, 2012, the Grievor grieved the decision that he was to pay a relocation storage expense. The Respondent questioned whether the grievance was timely, following which the parties made submissions. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. She found that, regardless of whether the Grievor learned of the disputed decision on July 19 or August 16, 2012, the grievance was filed after the expiry of the 30 day statutory limitation period set forth in paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act. She also found that an extension of that limitation period was not justified in the circumstances.

The ERC agreed the Level I grievance was untimely. Pursuant to paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act, a Level I grievance must be initiated within 30 days after the date on which the aggrieved member knew or reasonably should have known of the impugned decision. The Grievor knew about the impugned decision by August 16, 2012 and grieved it 55 days later. The ERC found that an extension of the Level I limitation period was not warranted. The ERC applied the four-factor test for extending time limits, established by the Federal Court of Canada. The ERC concluded that the Grievor did not possess a continuing intention to grieve and his explanations for the delay in grieving were not persuasive. The ERC sympathized with the Grievor's personal circumstances. However, it emphasized that the fact that the Grievor was unfamiliar with the grievance process and the fact that he initially pursued informal negotiations to resolve the matter did not satisfy the relevant test and did not constitute exceptional circumstances that prevented him from grieving within the statutory limitation period.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he deny the grievance on the basis that it was not presented at Level I within the 30 day time limit set forth in paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act.

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

The Grievor challenged the Force's decision that he was to pay a relocation storage charge. The Grievor retired from the Force and relocated to a different province. He arrived at his new home on June 8, 2012, and his effects were delivered on June 11, 2012. He was later advised that the moving truck had arrived in the Grievor's new locale on June 8, 2012 and stored his effects in the moving van until June 11, 2012 at a cost to be paid by the Grievor. The Relocation Policy Centre advised the Grievor on August 16, 2012 that he was responsible for the storage costs. He attempted informal resolution discussions before filing a grievance on October 10, 2012.

The Respondent raised the issue of time limits. A preliminary Level I decision denied the grievance on timeliness.

The Commissioner accepted the ERC's recommendations and denied the grievance on the basis that it was presented outside the statutory limitation period.