G-764 – Relocation

The Grievor contested the Respondent’s decision to deny her claim for a retirement relocation under the 2009 Integrated Relocation Program policy (IRP). Her spouse, who was also a member of the RCMP, took a retirement relocation following his retirement. When the Grievor retired more than five years later, her request for a retirement relocation was denied because the IRP provides that a Member Couple is only entitled to one retirement relocation at Crown expense.

The Grievor grieved the decision claiming she should have been considered a member with spouse at the time of her retirement, and thereby entitled to a retirement relocation, because her husband had retired significantly earlier than her. She indicated that their circumstances had changed since his retirement. She also stated that the IRP was discriminatory on the grounds of marital status.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Respondent applied the IRP policy regarding a Member Couple and retirement relocation in a consistent manner. The Adjudicator noted his limited mandate to determine whether the Respondent’s decision was consistent with policy, but commented that members who feel that their circumstances warrant a change to policy, may seek amendments by presenting their submission to their respective Commanding Officers, or through the appropriate national policy section.

The ERC indicated that with her argument that the policy was discriminatory, the Grievor was challenging the IRP policy itself, as opposed to challenging a decision made under that policy. The RCMP Act provides that Members are permitted to grieve if they are aggrieved by a “decision, act or omission” which was made within the administration of the affairs of the Force. Although the Grievor had standing to grieve the decision made under the policy, she did not have standing to challenge the policy itself.

The ERC further found that her argument of discrimination was a bald assertion because she did not explain or substantiate it, nor even specify which human rights legislation she was invoking. The ERC has taken the view that making a bald assertion of discrimination based either on the Canadian Charter of Human Rights or any other human rights legislation is insufficient for the ERC to address.

The ERC lastly found that the Grievor did not establish that the Respondent’s decision was inconsistent with applicable policy. The IRP is clear that a Member Couple is only eligible for one retirement relocation at Crown expense, and that members of a Member Couple should decide for which retirement to use it. The Respondent was bound to apply the applicable RCMP policy and had no discretion to do otherwise, as the IRP is policy, not permissive guidelines. There is no discretion to extend benefits or create entitlements unless specifically authorized in a provision. 

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 for the Integrated Relocation Program denying the Grievor’s request for a Crown-funded retirement relocation. At Level l, the Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Grievor had not established her case. The Grievor sought a review at Level ll. The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied on the basis that the Grievor had failed to establish her entitlement to a second Crown-funded retirement relocation. The ERC found that the Grievor had already received retirement relocation benefits, along with her member spouse, in 2010. The Commissioner agreed and dismissed the grievance.