Grievance Case Summary - G-674

On April 1^st, 2011, the Grievor was issued an A22-A transferring him from one province to another. As it was a cost transfer, the Grievor put his house for sale shortly after and it was actively on the market during spring, summer and fall 2011. The Grievor owns a 25’ travel trailer which he situated on a seasonal camping site for the summer of 2011. He was later authorized to relocate via his private motor vehicle (PMV). In September 2011, the Grievor had to remove the trailer from the seasonal site and he brought it home. However, the Grievor indicated that a covenant where his home was located prevented him from keeping the trailer at his residence because it was longer than 18’. As his house had yet to be sold, the Grievor put his trailer into storage for the winter.

The Grievor accepted an offer on his property in December 2011 and relocated in January 2012 with his Household goods and effects. However, he was unable to travel with his trailer as it was not accessible in the storage facility because other trailers were parked in front of his. The Grievor decided to leave his trailer behind for the time being. In the spring of 2012, the Grievor was informed that his trailer was now accessible and he could pick it up. Thus, he travelled from his new posting and stayed at his daughter’s residence. Upon his return, the Grievor requested the 50% kilometric rate allowed for trailers by the IRP. He did not claim mileage for his PMV nor for accommodation or meals. His request was denied.

The Grievor filed a grievance requesting to be paid the amount of $145.62. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. According to him, the IRP was clear that the member was entitled to a kilometric rate “when relocating”, not after.

The ERC found that the IRP did not provide for reimbursement of travel expenses on subsequent travels related to the initial relocation once the travel to the new location was completed. Further, the ERC found that the Grievor had not provided evidence that his situation met the definition of exceptional circumstances.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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

The Grievor challenged a decision by the Respondent to deny his relocation related expense claim comprising a kilometric allowance and a toll related to transporting a travel trailer to his new post. At Level I, the Adjudicator denied the grievance primarily on the basis that the Grievor did not obtain preauthorization to transport the trailer after the moving day. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied on the basis that policy required travel to the new post to be made in one trip with limited exceptions. The Commissioner allows the grievance finding that the expenses were envisioned under the relevant policy without resort to invoking exceptional circumstances.