G-777 - Relocation

The Grievor was issued a transfer notice for a cost relocation to a new posting. Unable to find a house that fit all of his personal criteria, the Grievor chose to purchase a new residence. He then extended the Planned Implementation Date by almost a month in an effort to reduce the number of days required for interim accommodations.

The Grievor then requested additional reimbursement for relocation expenses under the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP). Specifically, the Grievor sought reimbursement for Interim Accommodations, Meals & Miscellaneous Relocation Allowance expenses beyond the approved 15 days, storage costs for his Household Goods & Effects, and the costs of kennel fees for his pets.

The Respondent denied the Grievor’s request.

The Grievor grieved the Respondent’s decision. His arguments focused largely on the difficulties the move caused him and his family, how common it is for the Respondent to grant more than 15 days interim accommodation, and the definition of “exceptional circumstances” in the IRP.

During the grievance process, the Grievor also requested additional disclosure. He sought a detailed analysis of all similar decisions for the previous five years. The Level I Adjudicator found that the Respondent provided sufficient disclosure, and that the documents the Grievor requested do not exist. 

Disclosure

The ERC found that the Respondent met the duty to disclose. Pursuant to subsection 31(4) of the RCMP Act, the Respondent is required to grant access to such written or documentary information under the control of the Force as the member reasonably requires to present the grievance. The Respondent does not maintain the level of detail that the Grievor requested. Nevertheless, the Respondent made an effort to collect any information available. What the Grievor sought would have required extensive searching and retrieving of information, significant reformatting and transcribing to protect confidential information found in the relocation files, and the creation of new documents, to which he is not entitled.

Exceptional Circumstances

The ERC found that the definition of “exceptional circumstances” was present and sufficiently clear in the IRP, and that the Grievor failed to establish any exceptional circumstances in his case. A Relocation Reviewer may approve an additional 15 days of interim accommodations from the Core Envelope where exceptional circumstances exist. “Exceptional circumstances” is defined in the IRP as “events that are outside the Member’s control. These circumstances are considered rare and should only be considered in cases of extreme and unforeseen situations.” Therefore, reimbursement of the interim accommodations - including additional storage and kennel fees - beyond the initial 15 days would be contrary to the IRP.

The ERC recommended that the Grievance be denied.

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

The Grievor challenged the Respondent’s decision to deny his request for reimbursement of expenses arising from interim accommodations in excess of 15 days during a relocation to [Location A]. The Grievor insisted that his situation met the definition of "exceptional circumstances" set out by the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) policy. The Respondent disagreed. The grievance is dismissed at Level I. The Grievor sought a review at Level II and the case was referred to the ERC where upon examination recommended that the grievance be denied. The Commissioner found that disclosure obligations had been met and the Respondent’s decision was consistent with policy. As a result, the grievance was dismissed.