Grievance Case Summary - G-678

The Grievor was transferred to a new position. Before relocating to the new position, he went on a house hunting trip (HHT) to find somewhere to live at his new place of work. The Relocation Policy for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (2009) provided that the most practical and economical means of transportation be used for the HHT. A Relocation Section advisor authorized the Grievor to use a rental car for this trip. The Grievor believed that using his personal vehicle and being reimbursed for mileage would be less costly. He therefore contacted the advisor and a supervisor at the Relocation Section a few days before his HHT to try to convince them that it was more appropriate for him to use his own vehicle. Having received no response, the Grievor took his HHT using his personal vehicle in June 2012. Upon returning from the HHT in July 2012, the advisor confirmed that only a car rental had been authorized and that the mileage for the use of his personal vehicle during the HHT would therefore not be paid. The Grievor nevertheless claimed, and received payment for, the mileage of his HHT in August 2012. In December 2012, a reviewer from the Relocation Section advised him that he might have to reimburse this amount and told him that she had consulted the policy centre on this matter and was awaiting a response. In January 2013, a Relocation Section advisor informed him definitively that he would have to reimburse the mileage payment he had received since he had not been authorized to use his personal vehicle.

The Grievor filed a grievance challenging the decision to recover this amount. However, the Respondent argued that the Grievor had failed to comply with paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act which requires that a grievance be filed within 30 days after the day on which the member becomes aware of the decision aggrieving him or her. According to the Respondent, the Grievor had been informed of the approved mode of transportation in the summer of 2012 and should have filed his grievance then. The Level I Adjudicator dismissed the grievance on the ground raised by the Respondent, namely that it had not been filed on time. The Grievor presented his grievance at Level II.

The ERC found that the grievance was filed at Level I within the 30-day time limit prescribed in paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act. The grievance did not concern the decision to refuse payment of mileage costs for the HHT, which had been communicated to the Grievor in July 2012; rather, it concerned the subsequent decision, which was definitively communicated to the Grievor in January 2013, to demand reimbursement of the amount allegedly paid to him in error in August 2012. The decision communicated in January 2013 was not a confirmation of the decision communicated to the Grievor in July 2012; rather, it constituted a new decision giving rise to a different prejudice, that of having to reimburse a payment dating back several months. This prejudice differed from the prejudice related to the decision of July 2012 of not being entitled to payment.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be allowed on the grounds that the Level I prescribed time limit was met. The ERC also recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP ensure that the parties provide their submissions on the merits of the case at Level II directly to her, given the time that has passed in dealing with the Grievor's grievance.

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

[Translation]

The Grievor is challenging the Respondent's decision to ask him to reimburse an $842.42 allowance he received for a house hunting trip (HHT). At Level I, the Adjudicator found that the Grievor had not filed his grievance in time, pursuant to paragraph 31(2)(a) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The Grievor then submitted his case at Level II, which then referred the matter to the ERC. The Commissioner of the RCMP accepted the ERC's recommendation to the effect that the Grievor had in fact filed his grievance in time. The grievance is allowed, and the parties are invited to submit their arguments relating to the merits of the grievance.