Grievance Case Summary - G-660

While serving at an isolated post, the Grievor, who was single and childless, lived in Crown owned housing with insufficient room for his household goods and effects (HG&E), which were thus stored elsewhere within the province, at RCMP expense. He later accepted a transfer to an isolated post in another province, where he would again be living in Crown owned housing with insufficient room for his HG&E. The RCMP informed him that his HG&E would remain stored in their current location during that posting, at RCMP expense. He disliked this arrangement but agreed that it would have cost too much to move his HG&E to a storage unit near his new isolated post. After arriving at his new post, he bought a house in another city within the new province. He then submitted a business case requesting that his HG&E be moved to that house at public expense.

The Respondent refused to approve the business case for numerous reasons. Among the most prominent reasons were that the RCMP Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) permitted only the reimbursement of expenses "directly attributable" to a relocation, and the expense sought by the Grievor failed to satisfy that condition as his transfer to the new isolated post did not create a need to buy a house in another city within the new province. The Grievor grieved the Respondent's refusal of the business case. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on its merits, finding that the Grievor failed to show on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent's decision not to approve a paid shipment of his HG&E was at odds with relevant authorities. The Grievor resubmitted his grievance at Level II. The matter was referred to the ERC for review.

The ERC addressed the Grievor's four primary arguments at Level II. To begin, it dismissed his contention that he suffered discrimination on the basis of his marital status. The Grievor's failure to present a legal or policy framework, or any documentary evidence in support of this position meant he did not meet his onus of putting forth a prima facie case of discrimination. Second, the ERC did not agree that the Force should move the Grievor's HG&E to the new province on the basis that he anticipated his next post to be in the vicinity of his new house. The Grievor filed no evidence to support his position that he would be transferred to that region, the Respondent contested that position and the IRP does not authorize shipments of stored HG&E to speculative transfer locales. Third, the ERC rejected the Grievor's claim that he would "waive" the Crown from having to ship his HG&E out of his new house. The IRP neither permits, nor could be reasonably read as permitting, such a waiver in the circumstances. Fourth, the ERC disagreed that the principles and spirit of the IRP supported the Grievor's case. The IRP states that it was created as policy and not as permissive guidelines. It also states that the choices of members do not create entitlements, and that a reimbursable relocation expense must be directly attributable to a relocation as well as reasonable and justifiable. Ultimately, the ERC found that to interpret the critical phrase "relocated to a location where the HG&E could be repossessed" in paragraph 14.05.2 of the IRP as being wide enough to capture both an isolated post where the Grievor was posted and a city where he bought a house, separated by many hundreds of kilometers and a body of water, would be to widen that phrase past the point of reasonableness.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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 to ship his household goods and effects from long-term storage to a property he purchased following his relocation. At Level I, the Adjudicator denied the grievance. The Commissioner accepts the ERC's finding that the Grievor did not present evidence capable of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the impugned decision was inconsistent with relevant authorities. The grievance is denied.