Grievance Case Summary - G-740

The Grievor lived in a city in “X” Division with his spouse, who was also a member of the RCMP. The RCMP granted his spouse’s request for a Crown-funded pre-retirement move. As a result, the Grievor and his spouse moved to a town, as a “member couple”. The Grievor’s spouse soon retired from the RCMP. Subsequently, the couple separated. The Grievor continued to serve, and took title to what had been the couple’s home in the town. About two years later, the Grievor sought his own Crown-funded retirement move. The Policy Center responded that the Integrated Relocation Program Policy (IRP) did not permit such a move. The Policy Center noted that a member could take only one Crown-funded retirement or pre-retirement move, and that the Grievor had already taken a Crown-funded pre-retirement move with his then spouse.

The Grievor filed a Level I grievance, which was denied on its merits. He then re-submitted his grievance at Level II. He principally argued that that he should no longer be limited by the term “member couple”, regardless of whether he took a member couple pre-retirement move before his separation. He reasoned that he was a regular member and ought to be treated as one.

The ERC found that the grievance should be denied on the basis that the IRP did not generally permit a member to take more than one Crown-funded pre-retirement or retirement relocation. There were at least two reasons for this. First, the point of such a move was to help a member who had to leave their “original home community” return home, wherever the member decided home was (subsection 13.04.1(b)). The Grievor and his spouse decided that home was the town they relocated to at Crown expense. The Grievor could not later move “home” for a second time at Crown expense. Second, if the Force permitted members to take multiple paid retirement or pre-retirement relocations, then the cost to the Crown would not be reasonable (subsection 1.05.1(d)). The IRP carved out one exception to this rule. A member could have a second Crown-funded retirement move if the member was re-engaged for service post-retirement, and required to move for operational reasons (section 13.04.9). However, the Grievor did not fall within that clear and narrow exception. There were no other exceptions.

The Grievor’s marital status had no impact on whether he could receive his own Crown-funded retirement-related move. What mattered was the fact that a “member”, whether part of a “member couple” or not, was eligible to take only one Crown-funded retirement-related move (section 13.04.3). The Grievor already received that benefit, when he joined his spouse in her Crown-funded pre-retirement relocation. He therefore could not receive the benefit again two years later, for himself. His participation in his then spouse’s Crown-funded pre-retirement relocation is what barred him from receiving the benefit a second time, not what he seemingly perceived to be his indefinite status as part of a member couple.

The ERC apologized to the Grievor for the amount of time it took to process his file.

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 Departmental National Coordinator (DNC), Director of Financial Policy, Corporate Management and Comptrollership, to deny the Grievor’s request for a Crown-funded retirement relocation. At Level I, the Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Grievor had not established his case. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied on the basis that the Grievor had failed to establish his entitlement to a second Crown-funded retirement relocation. The ERC found that the Grievor had already received relocation benefits, along with his then member spouse. The Commissioner agreed and dismissed the grievance.