G-752 - Relocation

The Grievor filed a grievance against the Respondent’s decision requiring her to reimburse funds granted to her during a transfer under the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP). The amount of money in question received by the Grievor came from savings resulting from the smaller amount of household goods and effects shipped during her relocation. In an audit by Relocation Services, the Grievor had stated that she had left certain household goods at her residence. The Respondent therefore ordered the reimbursement of the savings received on the grounds that the Grievor had to ship her entire household effects under section 2.04.03.d of the IRP.

In her Level I grievance, the Grievor stated that section 2.04.03.d.iii of the IRP provides that “members who are proceeding unaccompanied OR not shipping their entire household effects are not entitled to this benefit.” She reasoned that since she moved accompanied by her common-law spouse, she should have benefited from the savings in question. Furthermore, the Grievor explained that the household goods that she did not ship were included in her accommodation at destination and that she therefore left them at her residence for her tenants. The Grievor also disagreed with the amount claimed, stating that she should have only reimbursed the net amount rather than the gross amount. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance.

At Level II, the Grievor challenges the Level I Adjudicator’s interpretation of the wording of section 2.04.03.d.iii, claiming that she was entitled to the savings since she did not move unaccompanied.

The ERC found that under section 2.04.03.d of the IRP, in order to obtain the savings, a member must be accompanied at the time of the move and must also have sent their entire household goods and effects. Furthermore, the ERC found that the Grievor did not provide any argument or evidence supporting her claim that the Respondent should not have required the gross amount of the reimbursable amount.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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

[Translation]

The Grievor challenged the Respondent’s decision requiring her to reimburse $3,408.16 granted during her transfer under the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Relocation Policy. The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor failed to meet her burden of proving that the Respondent’s decision requiring reimbursement of the additional amount paid violated the policy. The RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) found that the Respondent’s decision was consistent with the IRP and that the Grievor had the responsibility to familiarize herself with the policy and its exceptions. The Commissioner accepts the finding of the ERC and denies the grievance.