Grievance Case Summary - G-280

The grievance concerns the Force's refusal to reimburse part of the travel expenses claimed by the Grievor. Along with his spouse, who is also a member of the RCMP, the Grievor was assigned to temporary duties during the summer of 2001. The Grievor's spouse obtained approval from the Respondent to stay in a condominium property at the same rate as was being charged by a nearby hotel where other members on temporary duty were planning to stay. However, the Respondent indicated that his approval of these alternate accommodations was made contingent upon the Grievor and his spouse sharing accommodations. Two months later, after the assignment had ended, the Grievor submitted an expense claim for both himself and his spouse which included separate accommodations for each of them on six nights. The Respondent refused to pay that part of the Grievor's expense claim. He explained that he considered that it was "logical that a married cohabitating couple would share accommodations". The Level I adjudicator ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the grievance because it had not been submitted within the time permitted by the Act. He concluded that the Grievor should have submitted his grievance when he had first become aware that the Respondent would not approve separate accommodations for himself and his spouse and not wait until he had an expense claim rejected.

In his Level II submissions, the Grievor maintains that he could only grieve the Respondent's decision after he had incurred expenses in order to be able to demonstrate that he met the requirement under the Act that he be personally aggrieved by the decision.

The grievance was untimely at Level I. Since the Grievor was required to obtain prior approval from the Respondent for his choice of accommodations, he was aggrieved by the refusal to approve separate accommodations even without having yet incurred any travel expenses. The partial rejection of his expense claim was not a separate grievable decision as it flowed directly from the earlier decision to deny approval for separate accommodations. If the Commissioner is inclined to retroactively extend the grievance deadline, as is his prerogative under the Act, he should conclude that the Respondent had no authority to compel the Grievor and his spouse to share accommodations merely because they were married to each other. They were entitled to be treated in the same manner as any other members, none of whom were compelled to share accommodations. However, an issue arises as to why the Respondent was prepared to accept that the accommodations where the Grievor and his spouse stayed constituted commercial accommodations rather than a private residence. If the accommodations constituted a private residence, the Grievor and his spouse are only entitled to $13.50 per day for their accommodations.

The grievance should be denied.

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Committee. He denied the grievance.