Grievance Case Summary


In 2006, the Grievor worked at a detachment in [X] Division. In May 2006, the Grievor was diagnosed with a medical condition which required specialized medical treatment. He was placed on Off Duty Sick and was authorized by the Health Services Officer to complete his medical treatment in another city, over 600 kms away from his home detachment, to receive specialized care and to be closer to family support.

In February 2007, the Grievor started his Graduated Return to Work (GRW) in this same city. A transfer notice (A-22A) was issued to the Grievor and indicated “[t]his member is doing his GRW in [...] although he is a [...] resource until he is full duties and receives a transfer”. One month later, in March 2007, the Grievor was temporarily transferred into an acting position at the same detachment. A further A-22A was issued and contained the following comment “No Cost Transfer. Mbr temporarily acting in the position until a candidate has been successfully identified for the duties. [...]”. On January 7, 2008, the Grievor was officially promoted into the same position. 

In 2008, the Force initiated the Retroactive Corrective Payment of Relocation Benefits Project. The objective of the Project was to correct discrepancies in the treatment of members caused by inconsistent interpretations of the “cost” transfer criteria of the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) between 2001 and 2008. The Grievor applied to have his March 2007 transfer reviewed under the Project. The review team determined that the Grievor was ineligible to participate in the Project as his transfer was temporary in March 2007. Thus, the Grievor's transfer was not within the scope of the Project. The Grievor grieved this decision.

ERC Findings

The ERC observed that five types of grievances are referable to the ERC, in accordance with subsections 36(a) to (e) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988. It found that the present grievance did not fall within the scope of subsections 36(d) (Relocation Directive). The grievance does not involve the Force's interpretation of the IRP itself but rather the interpretation and application of a separate, internal initiative undertaken by the Force.

ERC Recommendation dated June 1, 2016

The grievance is not referable to the ERC. As a result, the ERC does not have the legal authority to further review the matter or make any findings or recommendations.

Commissioner of the RCMP Decision

The Commissioner agreed that the grievance was not referable to the ERC and sent the grievance to the appropriate Level II decision-maker.

Date modified: