Grievance Case Summary - G-194

After her retiring member husband received authorization to take a pre-retirement house-hunting trip (HHT), the member made a request for paid leave to accompany him on the HHT. Her request was denied for the reason that she did not qualify under the RCMP Relocation Directive for time off because she was not, herself, retiring or otherwise being transferred. The member submitted a grievance against this decision, arguing that it represented an incorrect interpretation of the RCMP Relocation Directive and constituted a violation of her right against discrimination based on her marital status, which right is protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Level I adjudicator determined that the grievance had been rendered merely academic and hypothetical because, according to his own inquiries, no HHT had actually been taken by the member or her husband. Thus, the issue of the member's entitlement to paid leave for such a trip was now merely academic, in his view, so that the member no longer had standing to bring the grievance.

On May 26, 1997, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee determined that the member had standing and that the grievance had not been rendered merely academic. The member had a direct interest in challenging the validity of the decision, a remedy could be effective for her and she satisfied the "aggrieved" requirement in subsection 31(1) of the RCMP Act.

On the merits of the grievance, the Committee determined that the member did not qualify for paid leave under the terms of the RCMP Relocation Directive. While her husband qualified under the Directive for time off for an HHT as a retiring member, she could not establish her own entitlement. As she was not being relocated by the Force as a consequence of her employment, she qualified for only those benefits allowed to the spouses of relocating members. Thus, her expenses for the trip had been authorized, but she did not qualify for paid leave. The Committee also found that the decision had not been discriminatory.

On January 28, 1998, the Commissioner rendered his decision. He agreed with the Committee and denied the grievance.