Grievance Case Summary - G-269

The Grievor and her spouse were both members of the Force posted to an isolated community within the meaning of Treasury Board's Isolated Posts Directive. The Grievor became pregnant and had to leave her community two weeks before her anticipated due date because the local hospital did not have an obstetrics unit. The Grievor's travel plans were pre-approved by the Force and her spouse was given time off to accompany her but he did not ask to have his travel expenses paid for by the Force. The Grievor gave birth three weeks later. Subsequently, the attending physician completed a medical certificate which said that the Grievor needed to be escorted during her travel period. On the basis of that certificate, the Grievor then sought reimbursement of her spouse's travel expenses. The Force's Health Services Officer asked the Grievor's physician to explain why he considered that an escort had been necessary. The reasons provided were, essentially, that the Grievor required moral support and that she had no relatives in Winnipeg. On that basis, the Health Services Officer concluded that there had been no medical requirement for an escort and the Force declined to reimburse the travel expenses incurred by the Grievor's spouse. This was grieved and eventually referred to the Committee at the second level.

On July 11, 2002, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee concluded that the Force was not obligated to accept the conclusion reached by the Grievor's physician that there was a medical necessity for the Grievor to travel with an escort. However, the application of the Directive within the RCMP must be consistent with the manner in which it is applied elsewhere in the public service. The National Joint Council has recognized that it is within the intent of the Directive that travel expenses incurred by a parent to attend the birth of a child should be reimbursed. It can therefore be accepted that the Grievor required an escort at the time that she gave birth. It is, however, not possible to justify paying a meal allowance to the Grievor's spouse for the three-week period that preceded the date on which the Grievor entered hospital. While it was desirable for the Grievor's spouse to be with the Grievor throughout the four-week period when she was away from her community, the provision of moral support is not a medical necessity. The Committee thus recommended that the grievance should be partly allowed.

On September 25, 2002, the Commissioner rendered his decision, as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee's analysis of the application of the Isolated Posts Directive in this case. Payment of expenses in this situation is governed by the Directive. He also accepted the recommendation of the Committee that only those expenses which were claimed by the Grievor's spouse as a result of the medical requirement for an escort's presence should be reimbursed.