Grievance Case Summary - G-221

The RCMP informed a member that he had been registered for full-time language training and that the classes were to be held in a city sixty kilometres from his place of work. The member was advised that the RCMP would cover his mileage, but only at the employee request rate (lower rate). For the two months before the training was to begin, the member tried to arrange with his senior NCO for a police car to be made available to him for his classes. The member was unsuccessful in this attempt, so he used his own car and submitted his first expense claim at the lower rate. He was still dissatisfied, so he attempted to obtain a more advantageous arrangement from the RCMP--once again, unsuccessfully. The member submitted his next expense claim at the employer request rate (higher rate) and, when the RCMP reimbursed him at the lower rate, he presented a grievance.

The Level I adjudicator denied the grievance, informing the member that at the time he had started his training, he had already known that he would be reimbursed at the lower rate for his mileage.

On February 16, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee concluded that the grievance had not been presented at Level I within the statutory time period. The basis for the grievance was the decision that the member's travel expenses would be paid at the lower rate. This decision predated the member's presentation of the grievance by a matter of months. The Committee did not blame the member for trying to solve the dispute amicably with his superior. However, there was a time limit that had to be met for presenting the grievance. Had the member done so, he could still have continued his attempts to arrive at an understanding.

The Committee noted that although it was compelled to find against the member on the ground that the time limit had expired, the information in the case revealed a degree of confusion in the Division concerning the criteria specified in the Treasury Board's Travel Directive for determining whether an employee is entitled to be reimbursed at the higher rate.

On March 23, 1999, the Commissioner provided his decision in this matter. His decision, as summarized by his office is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee and denied the grievance as it was presented beyond the required limitation period.