Grievance Case Summary - G-301

The Grievor was assigned to a murder investigation which required him to be on travel status for an extended period of time. He was initially permitted to stay at a hotel but was then ordered to move into a facility owned by the RCMP because the investigation was expected to take several months to complete and hotel costs were considered prohibitive. The corrective action sought by the Grievor was that the order be rescinded and that a ruling be issued on the validity of that order. Shortly thereafter, the Health Services Unit interceded on his behalf because the beds at the RCMP facility were too short for the Grievor's size and were preventing him from sleeping well. He was therefore allowed to resume staying at a hotel. The Level I adjudicator ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to consider the grievance on the merits because the Grievor had failed to establish that he had been "aggrieved" by the impugned decision, which is a prerequisite to the exercise of the grievance right, as stated in s. 31(1) of the Act. The adjudicator's rationale was that the Respondent's order to the Grievor that he stay at the RCMP facility "was legitimate and within the responsibility of the commander".

In order to determine whether the Grievor was "aggrieved" by the Respondent's order, the only issue that is relevant to consider is whether it is at least possible that the Grievor was prejudicially affected by the requirement placed upon him to stay at an RCMP facility rather than at a hotel. The ruling issued by the Level I adjudicator is therefore in error. The Grievor should not have been ordered to stay at an RCMP facility that did not meet the Force's own definition of what are "suitable police quarters" and did not comply with the requirement established by Treasury Board's Travel Directive that facilities be comfortable and of good quality".

The grievance should be allowed.

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations and allowed the grievance.