Grievance Case Summary - G-349

In 1996, the Grievor was posted to an area that subsequently became a depressed market for home sales. In 1999 the Grievor was promoted and a transfer was approved. This occurred just before the introduction of the Integrated Relocation Program on April 1, 1999. The Grievor was facing heavy home equity losses upon the sale of his house. After trying to get information about the new program, he opted to arrange his transfer so that it would be processed under the old program (a combination of the Guaranteed Home Sale Program and the Home Equity Assistance Program). He sold his home to the government and received 90% of his home equity loss. In September 1999, Treasury Board approved a transitional policy that allowed for 100% reimbursement of home equity loss in depressed markets. This transitional policy was effective as of April 1, 1999 and was not retroactive. The Force refused the Grievor's request to be reimbursed under the transitional policy for the remaining 10% of his loss. The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor had not met the statutory time limit; he should have been aware of the transitional policy at the time it was adopted in September 1999, and his grievance was presented only in July 2000.

Members are generally expected to keep informed about policy changes. However, in this case, the time limit should run not from the time that the policy was adopted, but rather from the time that the Force refused the Grievor's request to reimburse him under the transitional policy. The Committee therefore finds that this grievance was presented in time. There was no indication in the file explaining if or how members had been informed of the transitional policy. Furthermore, there appeared to be no formal policy document; the file contained only an unsigned, undated announcement of the policy coming into effect.

The transitional policy did not apply to the Grievor because his transfer was approved prior to April 1, 1999. As well, he did not have Treasury Board approval for further reimbursement under the old HEAP. Also, the Treasury Board policy on ex gratia payments could not apply to matters involving relocation, or be used to close a perceived gap in an applicable policy.

The Committee recommends that the grievance be denied.

The Commissioner has rendered his decision in this matter, as sumarized by his office:

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC on the time limit issue. Given the ambiguity in the IRP and transitional policies, it was reasonable for the Grievor to await a final decision on his claim.

The Commissioner concluded that the transitional policy was triggered on the date that the Grievor's transfer was authorized, not the date of the physical relocation. Since the Grievor's transfer was authorized in March 1999 and the transitional policy came into effect April 1, 1999, the Grievor could not avail himself of the reimbursement scheme for equity losses contained within that policy. The Commissioner also agreed with the ERC that an ex-gratia payment in this case was prohibited by the Treasury Board's Policy on Claims and Ex-Gratia Payments.

As a result, the grievance was denied.