Grievance Case Summary - G-265

In June 1997, the Grievor was assigned to a hotel, 25 miles east of his detachment, in order to assist in providing security for a visiting foreign dignitary. The Grievor purchased dinner from the hotel's room service at a cost of $42.28 and then submitted a claim for the full amount that he had spent. He was informed that he would only be reimbursed for $25.00, which at the time, was the standard maximum allowance for dinner as per the Treasury Board Travel Directive. The Grievor grieved that decision. His principal argument was that he had been compelled to purchase his meal from the hotel's room service because the nature of the security operation in which he was involved prevented him from leaving the hotel room to which he had been assigned.

The Grievance Advisory Board ("GAB") recommended that the Grievor be paid in full cost of his meal except for an amount of $7.00 for a pot of coffee, without interest. The GAB's position was that the Grievor should have been told ahead of time that there were local establishments which delivered meals to the hotel.

The Level I adjudicator denied the grievance and indicated that the fact that other members had not exceeded the maximum allowed demonstrated that the Grievor could have stayed within that limit as well.

On October 12, 2001, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee recommended that the grievance be allowed. The Committee considered that there was nothing extravagant about the meal that the Grievor took at the hotel and although it was suggested that he could have had a less expensive meal, it is not clear that he would have been able to eat anything other than hamburger, pizza or fried chicken if he had spent less than the maximum allowed. The Committee considered that the Grievor's situation was unique as he was required to eat dinner at the hotel room where he was performing his securities duties. Also, it was not reasonable to expect the Grievor to order hamburger and fries just so as not to exceed the maximum allowance for dinner, especially given his health condition. Treasury Board Travel Directive provides that there are exceptions to the rule that meal claims must not exceed the amount established; in some exceptional cases which result directly from the employee's duties, a higher priced meal may be reimbursed. As for the interest claimed by the Grievor, the Committee concluded that there is no government policy that would allow him to be paid interest.

On November 17, 2001, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision is as follows:

On November 17, 2001, after careful review of this grievance, the Commissioner has decided to support the findings and recommendation of the Committee. His main reason for supporting the Committee's recommendation is the existence of the member's medical condition; otherwise he would not have supported the grievance.