Grievance Case Summary - G-680

In 2011, the Grievor accepted a transfer and relocated as per the Integrated Relocation Program Policy for the RCMP 2009 (IRP). Prior to the move, the Grievor and the Respondent discussed the weight limitation for shipping his household goods and effects (HG&E) and the relevant IRP provisions. The Grievor claimed that the mover advised him that the HG&E were likely to be under the weight limitation. The HG&E were shipped and the Grievor was invoiced for the overweight HG&E. He grieved the Respondent’s decision to invoice him for the shipping cost of overweight HG&E.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the merits. She found that the Grievor had not met his burden to demonstrate that the Respondent’s decision to request reimbursement of shipping costs was inconsistent with the IRP and that the Grievor had not discharged the onus of familiarizing himself with the policy and seeking advice on the policy, where necessary.

The Grievor was served the Level I decision when he was Off-Duty Sick. Fourteen days later, he sent an extension request to the Office for the Coordination of Grievances to file his Form 3081. The Grievor submitted his Form 3081 to Level II, 30 days after he was served with the Level I decision. At Level II, the Grievor submitted that given the nature of his circumstances, both the remote location from which he was transferring from and his limited ability to verify the weight of his HG&E, he had taken all the steps required to ensure that his HG&E were within the weight limitation. The matter was then referred to the ERC for review.

The ERC found that the grievance was not presented within the 14-day limitation period outlined in paragraph 31(2)(b) of the RCMP Act. However, the ERC found that the Grievor’s circumstances merited a retroactive extension of time by the Commissioner, pursuant to subsection 47.4(1) of the RCMP Act.

In respect of the merits of this grievance, the ERC found that the Respondent’s decision was consistent with the IRP policy and that the Grievor’s circumstances did not meet the requirements of ‘exceptional circumstances’ as per section 1.03.18 of the IRP as they were not rare and extreme. The ERC found that the Grievor chose to take a risk by relying on the informal advice of the mover rather than exercising due diligence and making follow-up inquiries with the appropriate policy centre in the Force to verify that he was in compliance with the IRP.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner find that the Grievor has not satisfied the Level II time limitation but recommended that the Commissioner grant a retroactive extension of time pursuant to subsection 47.4(1) of the RCMP Act as there are strong grounds for finding that the Grievor’s circumstances merited an extension.

The ERC further recommended that the grievance be denied on the merits because the Respondent’s decision to invoice the Grievor for overweight HG&E was consistent with the IRP and the Grievor’s circumstances did not meet the definition of ‘exceptional circumstances’ as per the IRP.

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

The Grievor challenged the Respondent’s decision to invoice him for excess shipping costs resulting from overweight household goods and effects. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. The Commissioner accepts the ERC finding that the Respondent’s decision was consistent with the RCMP Integrated Relocation Program (IRP), the Grievor was responsible for familiarizing himself with policy, and the Grievor’s circumstances did not meet the requirements of “exceptional circumstances” as envisioned by the IRP. The grievance is denied.