G-781 - Relocation

The Grievor challenged the Respondent’s decision to deny him reimbursement for either a House-Hunting Trip (HHT) or a Destination Home Inspection Trip (DHIT) under the RCMP Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) for a 2012 relocation. He further requested Savings from Shipping Fewer Household Goods and Effects (SSFHG&E) in relation to two unrelated relocations that occurred in 2009.

The Grievor argued that he was entitled to an HHT for his 2012 relocation because his principal residence at the time was located at the detachment where he had been posted, as opposed to the home he owned in a different city and where his wife and children were residing. He indicated that he and his wife had spent several days house-hunting. He further submitted that although he ultimately moved into his family home, he was still entitled to be reimbursed because he did not “reoccupy” that home as he had never lived there. The Respondent argued that the Grievor was not entitled to the requested benefit because he moved into a home he already owned at destination, and was not on approved travel status when he was house-hunting. 

The ERC found that the Respondent’s decision to deny the Grievor an HHT or a DHIT was in accordance with applicable policy. Firstly, the Grievor did not submit the required documentation to request pre-approval for an HHT or a DHIT as required by the IRP. Secondly, although the Grievor originally intended to purchase a new home, he ultimately occupied the one he already owned, which was occupied by his family. The IRP provides that a member who plans to reoccupy a residence that he/she already owns, which is inhabited by the member’s spouse and or dependant(s) is not eligible for an HHT or a DHIT. The IRP also provides that a member who takes an HHT or a DHIT and subsequently reoccupies a currently owned residence may be required to reimburse all related expenses to the HHT or DHIT. Lastly, the IRP provides that a member who has already secured accommodation is not eligible for an HHT. The ERC rejected the Grievor’s argument that he did not “reoccupy” the home where his family was living because he had never lived there. Rather, the ERC found that any distinction between “occupy” and “reoccupy” was not determinative in the circumstances, and that the Grievor was not entitled to an HHT or a DHIT because he already owned the home he ultimately occupied, and therefore had already secured accommodation.

As for the Grievor’s request in relation to his 2009 relocations, the ERC found that it did not fall within the scope of the grievance. However, in light of the evidence contained in the record, the ERC suggested that the Commissioner may wish to address it separately. 

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 him reimbursement for either a House-Hunting Trip (HHT) or a Destination Home Inspection Trip (DHIT) under the RCMP Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) for his 2012 relocation, as well as the decision not to reimburse him for Savings from Shipping Fewer Household Goods and Effects (SSFHG&E) for two unrelated relocations that occurred in 2009. The Grievor insisted that he was eligible for either a HHT or DHIT because he spent time house-hunting and he did not "reoccupy" his home because he had never lived there before. Moreover, he argued that he did not learn that he should be entitled to SSFHG&E for his 2009 relocations until 2012. The Respondent disagreed. The grievance was dismissed at Level I. The Grievor sought a review at Level II and the case was referred to the ERC where upon examination the ERC recommended that the grievance be denied. The Commissioner found that the Grievor did not acquire pre-approval for an HHT or DHIT, as required by IRP, and the Grievor ultimately moved into a home he already owned. Although the grievance was denied for the 2012 relocation, the Commissioner directed the Respondent to reassess the Grievor’s SSFHG&E entitlement for the 2009 relocations.