Grievance Case Summary - G-705

The Grievor was posted at a Detachment. In 2007, a new detachment was built. On April 5, 2007, the Grievor was transferred from the old detachment to the new detachment. His transfer form (A22-A) qualified the transfer as being a "no cost" transfer which meant that relocation benefits were not provided because the Grievor's residence was situated less than 40 kilometres from the new detachment. At the time, the Grievor did not challenge this determination. On September 20, 2007, the Grievor learned that a Public Service employee (PSE) from his detachment and who resided near him was being considered for a transfer allowance (the PSE ultimately received the benefit).

On September 27, 2007, the Grievor filed a grievance arguing that he was entitled to a transfer allowance under the National Joint Council Integrated Relocation Program Directive (IRPD). In his submissions, he emphasized that the IRPD does not define "shortest usual public route" and consequently, since the PSE's itinerary was accepted by the Force and is one that he can also follow, this route should be considered as being the "shortest usual public route" between the area where both the Grievor and the PSE resided and the new detachment.

The ERC addressed several preliminary issues. It then reviewed the relevant sections of the IRPD. It ultimately held the Grievor did not show on a balance of probabilities that he was entitled to a transfer allowance. More specifically, the ERC determined that the Respondent's proposed route was clearly shorter than the Grievor's chosen route and as a result, and in accordance with the IRPD, the Respondent's route was to be relied upon when calculating the distance between the Grievor's residence and the new detachment. The ERC also rejected the Greivor's arguments that the distance between two locations should be based on the employee's preferred route and/or on the route which takes the least amount of time. Finally, contrary to the Grievor's contention, the ERC found that there was no error of process during the resolution of the grievance.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance.

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

The Grievor challenged the Respondent's denial of his request for a transfer allowance under the National Joint Council Integrated Relocation Program Directive (IRP Directive). He argued that another RCMP employee, who lives in close proximity to his residence, was granted the allowance. At Level I, the Adjudicator raised the preliminary issue of timeliness, and rendered a decision on the merits, finding that although the grievance was timely, the Grievor had failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent's decision was inconsistent with policy. The matter was referred to the ERC for review. The ERC found that the Grievor has not demonstrated that the Respondent's denial of his request was inconsistent with the IRP Directive or RCMP Relocation policy. The Commissioner accepts the ERC finding. The grievance is dismissed.