Grievance Case Summary - G-661

The Grievor was transferred from another Division. Prior to his transfer, he owned a home in the other Division. The cost relocation in respect of the sale of his home in the other Division had been authorized. The RCMP Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) set out various benefits that may be available in respect of the sale of the Grievor's home at the former place of duty, as long as it was sold within a two-year limitation period. Near the end of the two-year limitation period, the Grievor had only one pending offer with respect to the sale of his home in the other Division. The Grievor's spouse was working in a remote "fly-in" community with no legal services. Due to the logistical problem of obtaining the spouse's signature for the legal documents for the pending offer, the Grievor asked the contracted relocation service provider for an extension of the two year time limit. The Grievor then made this request to a Relocation Advisor who sent the request to the Respondent. The Relocation Advisor copied the Respondent's reply, denying the extension, in correspondence with the Grievor, on June 1, 2011. The Respondent's reply stated that it did not have the authority to approve the Grievor's request and that a business case requesting the extension based on exceptional circumstances, would need to be sent to Treasury Board Secretariat for review. The Grievor never submitted a business case and 18 months later, the Grievor requested an in-person meeting with the Respondent, who, when asked what he could do in the Grievor's case, replied that he could do nothing. One month after the meeting, the Grievor grieved the decision by the Respondent to deny his extension request. The Respondent requested a decision on the Grievor's compliance with the thirty-day time limitation to file a grievance at Level I. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the preliminary issue of compliance with time limits at Level I, finding that the Grievor was out of time as the decision by the Respondent had been communicated to the Grievor, when he first received a copy of the Respondent's reply from the Relocation Advisor on June 1, 2011. The Grievor resubmitted his grievance at Level II; along with a sanitized copy of a Level II Decision document relating to a different grievor. The matter was referred to the ERC for review.

The ERC found that the sanitized Level II Decision document, filed at Level II in support of the Grievor's submission, was admissible. The ERC considered that Privacy Act provisions applied in relation to these types of documents and they may not have been easily accessible by grievors in general. However, the ERC found that the Level II Decision document was of limited relevance to the grievance as the facts were limited and the Grievor's case could be distinguished from the case in the Level II Decision.

The ERC found that Respondent communicated the decision to the Grievor on June 1, 2011 and that this was the day the Grievor's right to grieve crystallized. The grievance was therefore presented outside the thirty-day limitation period outlined in paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act. The ERC further found that a retroactive extension of time was not warranted as there were no exigent circumstances that would cause the Commissioner or Delegate to obviate from the statutory requirement to file a grievance at Level I within 30 days.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner 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 her office, is as follows:

The Grievor challenged the Respondent’s rejection of a request for an extension of the two-year period under the Integrated Relocation Program. During early resolution, the Respondent requested a ruling on timeliness. At Level I, the Adjudicator found that the grievance was not timely. The Commissioner accepts the ERC finding that the grievance was not presented at Level I within the mandatory limitation period set out in paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act. The grievance is denied.