Grievance Case Summary - G-227

Over a period of about a year and a half, the member had volunteered on several occasions to complete his work shifts in a neighboring detachment as a replacement for members on leave. At the time of these replacements, he had asked to be reimbursed for his travel expenses, since he had to use his own vehicle to go there. His supervisor had refused any reimbursement. The member had nevertheless continued to effect replacements whenever he was asked. Several months later, following a reorganization of the services offered by the detachment in question, it was decided to reimburse the members who had to travel there. When he found out about this new practice, the member submitted a request in writing for reimbursement for all the times he had effected replacements. His request was rejected; the reason that was given was that he was not in travel status since the detachment became his workplace each time he went there to replace other members. The member submitted a grievance. The Grievance Advisory Board recommended that the grievance be allowed, judging that the trips came under assigned service. The adjudicator did not accept this recommendation and denied the grievance; he found that the voluntary nature of the trips at the time now prevented the member from claiming reimbursements.

On May 25, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee studied the question of the delay in submission of the travel expense claim. It found that, although the member should have presented his grievance within 30 days of his supervisor's first refusal, the RCMP had reopened the question as to whether the member should be reimbursed, so that he could present a grievance against the new decision.

As for the question at issue, the Committee pointed out that under the RCMP Regulations, "A member travelling in relation to the performance of the member's duties is entitled to be paid travelling expenses...." Payment of travel expenses in the RCMP must be made in conformity with Treasury Board policies. These policies are the Travel Directive and two Treasury Board decisions which make slight amendments to the Directive for the specific purposes of the RCMP.

The Committee first found that the definition applicable to "workplace" did not cover situations where a member occasionally replaces another member. In this case, the detachment where the member went to replace other members did not become his workplace. As well, it was clearly at the request of his employer that he was called upon to go to the neighboring detachment from time to time, whether or not he had an option to accept the assignment. The Committee therefore found that the member was absent from his workplace on assigned service and that he was entitled to be reimbursed for his travel costs. The Committee rejected the adjudicator's finding that the acceptance, at the time, of the replacement conditions precluded the member from claiming reimbursement. The Committee stated clearly that RCMP members should not be placed in a situation where they benefit from a particular assignment in exchange for giving up their rights to a payment allowed by Treasury Board. The Committee recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance.

On July 22, 1999, the Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner carefully reviewed this case. He agrees that the duties performed by the member at [the neighboring detachment] were of a temporary nature and that the member's workplace continued to be the [detachment]. The Commissioner also takes into consideration the fact that the member went to the [neighboring detachment] at the request of the officer in charge, without having had the opportunity to choose the means of transportation that would convey him there. The Commissioner allows the grievance and agrees with the recommendation of the External Review Committee to reimburse the member for his travel expenses.