Grievance Case Summary - G-250

The Grievor was temporarily transferred from his detachment to an assignment in another city in the same Division. The transfer did not involve a relocation because of its limited 18 months duration. The Grievor rented furnished accommodations in the assignment location. The Grievor was paid full composite daily allowance for the first six months. After six months, his reimbursements were frozen to allow the Force to evaluate his entitlement. After about a month, he requested advice as to his entitlement and was told that he could claim only 65% of the daily dinner rate as his daily meal allowance. He requested his Divisional Staff Relations Representative ("DSRR") to assist in obtaining a review and a second opinion. Over the next few months, the Grievor's DSRR and supervisor both made representations to the Force. The supervisor wrote a memo on the Grievor's behalf, outlining arguments, two of which were new. The Force did not respond until specifically requested to by the DSRR, approximately five months after the Grievor had been first advised about the change to his meal allowance entitlement. The Force's response reiterated the position that the Grievor was not entitled to the full composite allowance. The Grievor then submitted a grievance against the decision set out in the response.

The Level I adjudicator denied the grievance on the ground that the grievance was out of time, being submitted several months after the Grievor was first told that he would not be paid the daily composite allowance. The adjudicator also held that the policy on travel entitlements during extended temporary stays in another workplace was correctly interpreted. The Grievor then submitted his Level II grievance. He argued that he had been told by the DSRR to go along with the earlier decision and that the DSRR would obtain a second opinion from Corporate Management and that he was entitled to choose whether or not the policy used by the Force to assess his entitlements would be applied.

On July 4, 2000, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that the Grievor received a clear and unambiguous decision on his allowance entitlements in response to his first request for advice on those entitlements after they had been reduced, and that the limitation period for initiating his grievance ran from that time. There was no indication in the record that the Grievor had been assured by someone in authority that his request for full daily composite allowance might be approved following a review. The Committee also found that the Force's second response was not a new decision. The new arguments provided by the Grievor did not put the original decision in a new light in the sense that the facts were so startling that they resulted in a new decision being made in a different context than that of the original decision.

With respect to the merits, the Committee found that the Force correctly interpreted the relevant policies. It found that Grievor's entitlements were governed by Part V of Treasury Board's Travel Directive, which provided that where the period of stay at another location exceeded four months, the short-term relocation provisions in the Relocation policy would apply. The RCMP Relocation Directive specifically addressed short-term relocations for assignment purposes and provided for assignments, like that of the Grievor's, where relocation was not offered. It indicated that the temporary dual residence assistance ("TDRA") provision (section 7.5.2) regarding reimbursement of living expenses may be applied to members who are living away from their workplace but who were not being relocated, "as if" they were eligible for TDRA. Given the words "as if" in the TDRA provision, there was no option allowing a member to choose whether or not he or she would be treated as being on full travel status. Under the TDRA provision, the Grievor was entitled to 65% of the daily dinner allowance as his daily expense allowance.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied because it was not submitted within 30 days after the day the Grievor received the original decision.

On August 8, 2000, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner concurred with the External Review Committee on the time limits issue and accepted its rationale. The grievance was denied. The Commissioner did not address the merits of the grievance.