Grievance Case Summary - G-303-304-305-306-307-308-309-310

Eight members of the RCMP who were temporarily assigned to Quebec City for periods of several months for the Summit of the Americas in April 2001 challenged the refusal to pay them a meal allowance during this period. Before their assignments, the appellants worked in the Quebec City area but not in Quebec City itself. All the appellants learned at a meeting in January 2001 that the employer refused to pay them a meal allowance because they were not on travel status. The appellants decided not to challenge the decision at that time. After the Summit of the Americas, the appellants submitted their claim requests, which were all refused. They then presented their grievances. The Level I Adjudicator concluded that the appellants should have presented their grievances in January or February 2001, that is, within 30 days of being informed of the decision that their meals would not be reimbursed. When they presented their grievances at Level II, the appellants said that they had waited until the Summit of the Americas was over to take action in the interest of keeping peace in their work team.

The Level I grievances were submitted late. The appellants should have presented their grievances as soon as they were informed that they would not receive an allowance. The subsequent submission of claim requests did not create a new right to recourse because the refusal of these claim requests simply confirmed the earlier decision. The Act is intended to require members to act quickly in challenging decisions that adversely affect them. The appellants' interest in maintaining peace in their work team is not relevant in calculating the deadline in accordance with the Act. Moreover, the RCMP Commissioner should not exercise his prerogative to retroactively extend the deadline for presenting Level I grievances, since the RCMP is not responsible for the several months' delay in presenting the grievances. As to the merit of the grievances, since the RCMP did not act unreasonably in changing the appellants' place of work, they were not on travel status and could therefore not receive a meal allowance. It was not unfair that other members received the allowance because they had to stay at a hotel.

The grievances should be dismissed.

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