Grievance Case Summary - G-256-257-258-259

The Grievors presented claims for meal expenses incurred during travel on patrol near the end of 1998. The amounts claimed for meals were consistent with the rates set out in the Travel Directive of the Treasury Board Secretariat. The four claims were rejected. In three cases, the Grievors were told that they could only redeem the amount they actually spent. As for the fourth case, the Grievor was told to claim a more realistic amount.

The Level I adjudicator decided not to convene the Grievance Advisory Board (GAB). He concluded that the RCMP policy on meal expenses for travel of less than one day was clear: the member has a right to have the actual cost reimbursed, i.e. the amount spent by the member up to the rates set out in the Travel Directive.

On March 8, 2001, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee first stated that the Level I adjudicator was wrong in not convening the GAB to review the grievances. By acting in this way, it breached the Commissioner's Standing Orders (grievances) and deprived the Grievors of a significant means of making themselves heard. However, the Committee indicated that, in this specific case, it was possible to draw appropriate conclusions and, for this reason, it was not necessary that the file be returned to the adjudicator to convene the GAB.

The Committee then concluded that, for travel on patrol, it is the actual cost of meals that should be reimbursed. Particularly, the Committee explained that the directive implemented in 1971 for members of the RCMP was designed to deal with travel situations exclusive to the RCMP. This directive stated explicitly that the overall Treasury Board policy, the Travel Directive, applied to the RCMP. At that time, the 1971 directive stated that reimbursement for meal expenses, for travel on patrol, was to be determined at a preset rate, the same rate received by public servants for travel of less than one day. The Travel Directive was later modified to base the meal expense reimbursement rate claimed by public servants on actual expenses for travel of less than one day. Consequently, the meal expense reimbursement rate claimed by members of the RCMP was also modified to be based on actual expenses. The Committee noted that this policy had been interpreted differently in the past, but that it was clear that the Treasury Board's intention was to reimburse actual expenses and not to provide a source of income.

Finally, the Committee concluded that the RCMP does not have the right to limit the amount that members could claim. Only the maximum amounts of the Travel Directive apply. The Directive should be applied in a consistent and fair way across the RCMP.

On September 25, 2001, the Commissioner rendered his decision in these matters, as summarized by his personnel:

The Commissioner agreed with the conclusions and the recommendations made by the External Review Committee (ERC). He allowed the grievance concerning the question of a Grievance Advisory Board meeting that was, according to him, necessary in this case and concerning the question of the maximum amount that could be claimed by members for their meals. On this issue, the Commissioner emphasized that Treasury Board and RCMP policies allow for a maximum amount to be claimed and that there is no authority allowing different rates to be set. Concerning the question of reimbursement of meal expenses at the preestablished rate for a trip of less than one day, the Commissioner rejected the grievances. He indicated that a member can only claim expenses actually incurred and that the supervisor has discretion to request a receipt if the claim seems unreasonable. The Commissioner indicated that the goal of the Treasury Board policy is to reimburse actual expenses and not to provide a source of income.