Grievance Case Summary - G-659

The Grievor was transferred from his original posting to his final posting. He moved to the area of his final posting but elected to retain ownership of his residence in his original posting. Around 1.5 years later, he retired from the Force and, at some point following his retirement, moved back to the area of his original posting. He later advised the Named Respondent, a Relocation Reviewer, that he wished to treat his move from his final posting back to his original posting as a “retirement relocation” to be partly funded by the RCMP. The Named Respondent replied that the Grievor did not qualify for a retirement relocation from his final posting to his original posting, explaining that the Grievor was not registered to obtain such a benefit and that he no longer resided in the area of his final posting.

The Grievor filed a Level I grievance, disputing the Named Respondent's refusal to authorize his request for a retirement relocation. It was proposed to the Grievor that he send a business case for the retirement relocation to the Departmental National Coordinator (DNC) who, in the view of the Named Respondent, was the correct responding party. The Grievor maintained that he was grieving the Named Respondent's refusal to allow his request for a retirement relocation. There is no business case in the record. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Grievor lacked standing to file it because he was retired and alternatively, that it was premature.

The ERC found that the Grievor had standing to submit the grievance as he met the five conditions of standing set out in subsection 31(1) of the RCMP Act. First, despite being a retiree, he was a “member” given that his grievance involved an employment-related benefit to which he might be entitled. Second, he was aggrieved because the refusal to permit his request for a retirement relocation caused him prejudice. Third, while the Named Respondent might or might not have made a decision, she engaged in an act which went to the heart of the case. As a Relocation Reviewer and point of contact on relocation inquiries, she applied RCMP relocation policy in a way that precluded the approval of the Grievor's request for a retirement relocation at the time. Fourth, the impugned decision, act or omission of the Named Respondent clearly took place in the administration of the Force's affairs. Fifth, there was no available process under the relevant legislation for resolving disputes over a member's entitlement to a retirement relocation.

The ERC also found that the grievance was not premature. There was a final disposition of the matter and the differences between the parties were not unframed or hypothetical. The Named Respondent replied to the Grievor's request for a retirement relocation by concluding that he did not qualify for one, thus closing the door to his request. Nothing about her conclusion suggests that it was an interim or provisional assessment, or that the matter was ambiguous. The Grievor grieved the Named Respondent's action, and persisted in his wish to pursue the grievance as it was originally framed. Although it was open to the Grievor to send the DNC a business case for a retirement relocation, any attempt to change the outcome of the situation by way of a separate authority with different decision-making power would have resulted in a new grievable decision.

The Chair recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance and ensure it is heard on the merits.

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

The Grievor presented a grievance against the Respondent's decision to deny his request for a retirement relocation. During the early resolution phase of the grievance process, the Respondent contested the Grievor's standing. At Level I, the Adjudicator found that the Grievor did not have standing and therefore denied the grievance. The Commissioner accepts the ERC's finding that the Grievor was in fact a member for the purposes of the standing analysis pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the RCMP Act. The grievance is allowed and will proceed on the merits.