Grievance Case Summary - G-744

The Grievor transferred to an isolated post in another division (new posting), and the RCMP stored his effects in his original location. The Grievor filed a business case proposing that the RCMP ship his effects to his property in a separate province (separate property). He felt this would be a positive move for both sides: the RCMP could save thousands of dollars in storage fees, while he could have his separate property furnished and later move there or near there. The RCMP denied his business case because there was no authority for approval and too many unknowns in the circumstances. The Grievor grieved the RCMP’s decision months after receiving it, in a separate proceeding (old grievance). The Level I Adjudicator, the ERC and the Commissioner all found that the old grievance was time-barred.

The Grievor shipped his effects to his separate property at a cost of roughly $12,000. Years later, the RCMP transferred him from his new posting to a post in a third division. He filed a new business case seeking a reimbursement of the money he had spent to transport his effects from his original location to his separate property. The RCMP denied that business case and the Grievor presented a grievance (new grievance). The Level I Adjudicator denied the new grievance on the basis that the Grievor lacked standing to submit it. She held that the same subject was already heard and decided in the old grievance.

The ERC found that the Grievor had standing to present the new grievance. He satisfied the first four requirements of the standing test. Specifically, he was a member; he was personally prejudiced (i.e. financial prejudice); the prejudice was a result of a decision to deny his business case; and that decision was made in the administration of the affairs of the RCMP. The final requirement was that there be no other redress process available under the RCMP Act, the 1988 Regulations or the Commissioner’s Standing Orders. The ERC and the Commissioner had previously found that this requirement would not be satisfied where a member was grieving the very same subject that the member already grieved in another RCMP grievance.

However, the Grievor was not grieving the same thing he grieved in the old grievance. In the old grievance, his request for the shipment of his effects to his separate property was principally based on a business case that was grounded on speculation involving how long he would serve in his new posting and where he would transfer to afterwards. The new grievance is different in that he contested the RCMP’s refusal to reimburse the cost of shipping his effects from his original location to his separate property following the completion of his tenure in his new posting, and his confirmed transfer to the third division which was closer to his separate property. He raised a new question involving whether the RCMP must pay the expense of shipping his effects regardless of whether he already shipped them himself; a question he believed Isolated Posts policy answered in the affirmative. The ERC made no findings concerning the soundness or persuasiveness of that argument. It simply observed that the argument, and the facts underpinning it, gave rise to a different grievance than the old grievance.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be allowed. In light of the inordinate passage of time in this grievance, the ERC further recommended that the matter proceed on its merits directly before the Commissioner.

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

The Grievor challenged the Respondent’s decision to deny his claim for reimbursement of certain moving costs. The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor lacked standing as he had other redress available to him, namely, a previous grievance filed in 2008 arising from the same circumstances. The RCMP External Review Committee recommended that the grievance be allowed on the basis that the Grievor demonstrated he had standing by distinguishing this grievance from the one he filed in 2008. The Commissioner agreed that the Grievor has standing and given the passage of time directed the Parties to provide submissions on the merits for a final decision at level II.