Grievance Case Summary - G-656

On June 27, 2008, the Grievor was issued a Transfer Notice for a cost relocation. On the same date, a relocation coordinator sent an email to the Grievor with relocation-related information. A relocation services representative contacted the Grievor the following week. They discussed the Grievor's interest in listing his property on the market and the commission rates charged by realtors. The representative confirmed that a more comprehensive consultation would occur at a later date. The representative then mailed the Grievor a package containing a copy of the Integrated Relocation Program policy (IRP) and an informational booklet entitled “It's Your Move”.

The following day, the Grievor listed his property for sale. During a subsequent consultation which occurred several weeks later, the relocation services representative mentioned the Real Estate Incentive (REI). REI was an amount that could be paid by the RCMP to a relocating member as an incentive to retain a residence at the old place of duty, or as an incentive to sell the residence privately. The Grievor requested REI and took his residence off the market. His request was denied and he grieved this decision. The Grievor alleged that he was entitled to the REI benefit under applicable policy. Furthermore, he argued that the relocation coordinator and the relocation services representative had failed to properly advise him of the REI benefit in a timely manner.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. She referred to Section 1.08.2.b of the IRP which required the Grievor to choose between selling his residence and receiving REI within 15 working days of receipt of an appraisal. She further referred to the Note for the same section which indicated that the REI benefit was forfeited the moment a member placed his residence on the market. The Level I Adjudicator observed that the Grievor was sufficiently informed of his options through the communications and materials he received from the relocation coordinator and the relocation services representative.

The ERC found that, pursuant to Section 1.08.2.b of the IRP, the Grievor had forfeited his right to claim REI the moment he listed his residence on the market. The ERC further concluded that the relocation information provided to the Grievor was reasonable.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance. In the interest of avoiding future misinterpretation, the ERC also recommended that the initial standardized communication from the relocation coordinator to relocating members remind the members of their obligation to be familiar with applicable policies.

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

The Grievor challenged the Respondent's decision to deny the Grievor's claim for a real estate incentive under the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) after he listed his residence for sale. The Level I adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Grievor failed to establish that the Respondent's decision was made contrary to the applicable policy. The External Review Committee (ERC) recommended that the grievance be dismissed. The Commissioner accepted the ERC's recommendation and dismissed the grievance.