Grievance Case Summary - G-741

The RCMP transferred the Grievor from one location (Old Post) to another location (New Post). However, the RCMP mistakenly checked off the "cost move" box on his Transfer Notice. The Grievor opted to remain in his home at the Old Post and commute to the New Post. The RCMP soon realized its error; the Grievor's transfer could not be a cost move under the Integrated Relocation Program policy (IRP), since none of the conditions for a cost move were met. The RCMP in turn notified the Grievor that his transfer would be reissued as a no cost move.

The Grievor grieved the decision to deny him a cost move. However, he mainly alleged that he was not afforded Crown housing at the Old Post and, therefore, that he had higher costs and fewer benefits than his peers in Crown housing. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on its merits, finding that the Grievor had not met any of the IRP requirements for receiving a cost move. The Grievor resubmitted his grievance at Level II. He reiterated that he never had an opportunity to live in government-owned housing, and be treated like his peers, at the Old Post.

The ERC found that the scope of the grievance was limited to the decision to deny the Grievor a cost move. While the Grievor argued that no Crown housing was assigned to him at the Old Post and that this was unfair, there was no objectively documented or mutually identified decision, act or omission regarding that issue in the record. In fact, the Grievor had housing-related concerns as early as four years prior to filing his grievance, but never submitted a grievance in relation to them. The issue fell outside the four corners of the present grievance.

The ERC noted that, under the IRP, a relocation could be funded by the Crown if the distance between the old and new places of duty was at least 40 km, and the distance between the residence at origin and the new place of duty was at least 40 km. The Grievor did not meet either condition. The IRP also provided that a relocation could be funded by the Crown where: there was a documented requirement for the member to relocate and live near the new place of duty, and the relocation was authorized for operational reasons; or the member had to vacate Crown-owned housing. The Grievor did not satisfy any of those conditions either.

The ERC observed that, years before lodging his grievance, the Grievor filed a written complaint about his perceived inequitable housing situation at the Old Post, but did not receive a response to it. The ERC also observed that, after he initiated his grievance, the Grievor presented a claim for "the difference I've paid in regards to my co-workers to live and work in the same community over the previous 4 years". The ERC further observed that, although the complaint and claim did not fall within the ambit of this grievance, it remained open to the Commissioner to deal with them outside the grievance process if they had not been appropriately addressed.

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 Director, Financial Policy, Corporate Management and Comptrollership, that the Grievor’s transfer to his new post was not a “cost move.” 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 applicable policy does not entitle the Grievor to a cost move. The grievance is denied.