Grievance Case Summary - G-238

The member submitted a claim for reimbursement of two meals, taken during a trip of less than a day to write a promotion examination. His claim was rejected for two reasons. First, the policy on the promotion process stated that this process was a voluntary one and that members should participate in it outside of work hours. The member had therefore not been travelling as part of his duties and could not claim expenses. Second, since the trip covered only 80 kilometres, it did not meet one of the criteria of a reimbursement system regarding promotion examinations set up by the Commanding Officer of the Division. In general, the system provided reimbursement for one meal when members had to travel more than 100 kilometres to reach the examination site; it also provided that all expenses would be paid for those who had to travel more than 200 kilometres. The member contested the refusal by submitting a grievance.

The Grievance Advisory Board issued a majority report in which it recommended that the grievance be denied for the reason that the Travel Directive did not apply to the member's situation, given the voluntary nature of the trip. According to the majority members, it was the system set up by the Commanding Officer by virtue of his exceptional discretionary power that applied to the matter. They found that the member did not meet the criteria of this system. The minority member of the GAB recommended that the adjudicator allow the grievance for the reason that the member was basically on duty and therefore in travel status. The Level I adjudicator rejected the grievance, based on the voluntary nature of the member's participation in the examination, and on the parameters established by the then Commanding Officer.

On November 15, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The External Review Committee found that the member's trip represented travel on duty under the terms of the Treasury Board's Travel Directive and the applicable Treasury Board minutes. The Committee first explained that the parameters set by the Commanding Officer, on the basis of which the member was refused reimbursement, were not valid. To begin with, the Commanding Officer had no power to authorize the reimbursement of travel costs incurred during travel that was not duty-related. Neither could he limit the application of the Travel Directive.

The Committee found that the Travel Directive was applicable since the member's trip represented duty-related travel. In the Committee's view, the RCMP had a considerable interest in having the member write the promotion examination. Allowing members to write promotion examinations is not simply a favour that is done for them; rather it is the manner in which the organization chooses to plan its future. The Committee recommended that the grievance be allowed and that the member be reimbursed for his meal expenses.

On March 15, 2000, the Acting Commissioner Allen rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Acting Commissioner allowed the appeal. He considered that the directives of the Division Commanding Officer expressed in message ADM 6/167 were unjust in regard to their application to the members who participated in the promotion examination process. He concluded that Bulletin CMM-134 should be reviewed in order to clarify whether it really is preferable to consider that a promotion examination forms no part of a member's duties, especially in view of the benefit that the RCMP derives from attracting the best candidates.