Grievance Case Summary - G-679

The Grievor was transferred to a new position. His final relocation trip took place in August 2012. When he arrived at the new position, the Grievor was staying at a residence (the new residence) rented and inhabited by his father. The Grievor continued to occupy the new residence thereafter and stored his furniture and belongings there after they were delivered. He claimed, and on September 8, 2012, received, $100.00 in compensation for the private non-commercial accommodation allowance (PNAA), of $50.00 for two nights, that is, August 8 and 9, 2012. On December 18, 2012, a financial reviewer in the Relocation Section (the Reviewer) advised the Grievor by email that he would have to reimburse the $100.00 PNAA he had been paid. She noted that, according to the Relocation Policy for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (2009) (the Relocation Policy), any member who “stays in his/her own residence” cannot claim the PNAA. She stated that the address of the new residence, where the Grievor indicated that he had stayed on August 8 and 9, 2012, was the address he had designated as his new destination address and that it was therefore the address of his “own residence”. The Grievor replied to the Reviewer by email on December 20, 2012, providing further details regarding the new residence. He informed her that the address of the new residence was actually his father’s, and that when he spent the night at this residence when he arrived at the new position, he stayed there temporarily while he was actively looking for housing. His bed and “effects” could not be delivered to the new residence on the evening of August 9, 2012, and the new residence did not become his “address” until September 10, 2012. The Grievor received no response to this email. On January 23, 2013, a Relocation Section advisor informed the Grievor that he would have to reimburse the amount of the PNAA.

On February 2, 2013, the Grievor filed a grievance challenging the decision communicated on January 23, 2013. The Respondent argued that the grievance had not been filed in accordance 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 was informed of the obligation to reimburse the PNAA on December 20, 2012, and he had to file his grievance within 30 days of that date. 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 information provided to the Reviewer on December 20, 2012, shed a whole new light on the question of whether the Grievor, when he first arrived at the new position, had stayed in his “own residence” according to the terms of the Relocation Policy. The Grievor could reasonably expect that the decision of December 18, 2012, would at least be reviewed in the light of these details about his particular situation when he arrived at the new position. However, he received no response to this email. The 30-day time limit required to file the grievance began when the Grievor received the communication of January 23, 2013, confirming that the amount of the PNAA would have to be reimbursed and which in no way indicated that the information he had provided had been considered. The Grievor met this time limit.

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 a $100.00 PNAA. 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 the grievance at Level II, which then referred it to the ERC. The Commissioner of the RCMP accepted the ERC's recommendation to the effect that the Grievor had in fact lodged his grievance in time. The grievance is allowed, and the parties are invited to submit their arguments relating to the merits of the grievance.