Grievance Case Summary - G-217

The Grievor was a Division Staff Relations Representative (DSRR). He had submitted a request for reimbursement of travel expenses after travelling outside his division to attend a semi-annual meeting of DSRRs and RCMP management. The request was rejected because the Grievor did not have his employer's permission to travel. At the time of the travel, he was subject to a suspension notice, under which he was prohibited from leaving his region. He grieved the denial of his request for reimbursement.

At Level I, the adjudicator decided not to send the grievance to a Grievance Advisory Board (GAB), because he did not think he needed the advice of a GAB to decide the issue. The adjudicator denied the grievance on the ground that the Grievor did not have permission to travel. The Grievor submitted his grievance at Level II.

On January 1, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The External Review Committee pointed out that the adjudicator had acted contrary to the Commissioner's Standing Orders (CSOs) on grievances in that he failed to send the matter to a GAB. The CSOs give a list of types of grievances which do not have to be sent to a GAB. That list does not include grievances on reimbursement of travel expenses, and the CSOs do not allow for the discretion which the adjudicator appears to have granted himself. Despite this error, the Committee determined that the case should not be returned to a Level I adjudicator, who would then obtain the advice of a GAB. Instead, the Committee concluded that a final resolution of the question would be in the parties' interests. There was sufficient information on file to make a decision on the right to reimbursement, and the issue was now several years old.

The Committee explained that under the applicable policy, it is clear that an employee of the Government of Canada cannot make a business trip without the permission of his employer. However in its reading of the CSOs on the DSRR Program, the Committee noted that DSRRs are obliged to attend semi-annual meetings with management. The Committee therefore considered the question of whether the notice of suspension had the effect of suspending the Grievor from his DSRR duties, thus exempting him from his duty to attend the meetings. The Committee pointed out that the notice of suspension gave a detailed description of the policing duties which the Grievor was not to carry out, but was silent with regard to his DSRR responsibilities. The Committee's reading of the DSRR Program CSOs as a whole was that, in light of the spirit of the Program, one could not expect the notice to have the effect of suspending the Grievor from a duty such as that of DSRR without a clear statement to that effect in the notice. The Committee concluded that the Grievor could not be criticized for assuming that he was still a DSRR, and for interpreting the Commissioner's order to attend the meeting as having precedence over the prohibition on travel in the notice of suspension. The Committee concluded that the Grievor was obliged to attend the meeting and that his expenses should be reimbursed. The Committee recommended that the grievance be allowed.

On February 24, 1999, the Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter. His decision, as summarized by his office is as follows:

The Commissioner agrees with the ERC that the Level I Adjudicator had to convene a GAB but that it is preferable at this time to review the grievance on its merits. The Commissioner also agrees with the ERC that the decision to reinstate the member following the suspension had no retroactive application to the issue raised in this grievance. On the other hand, the Commissioner concluded that a suspension from duty includes the duties that are or could be usually performed by the member. In this instance, the primary duties of the member were those of DSRR. Section 12.1 of the RCMP Act does not create an obligation to list all duties performed by the member which are often multiple. The grievance is denied.