Grievance Case Summary - G-334

The Grievor was assigned for five days to temporary duties on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, as part of a security operation related to the G-8 summit. He received written instructions that meals would be provided on site except for breakfast. When he submitted his travel claim for this trip, he included the meals that were provided on site. This part of the claim was denied. The only explanation given by the Grievor in support of his Level I grievance was that he believed he was entitled to the full amount of the claim he submitted. In its reply, the Respondent stated that the Grievor was not entitled to reimbursement for meals that were provided free of charge. This reply was communicated to the Grievor and he was invited to submit his comments. He did not submit any. The Level I adjudicator found that the grievance was inadmissible because the Grievor was unable to demonstrate that his rights had been adversely affected. At Level II, the Grievor maintained he was entitled to the amount claimed because other members assigned to the same location were reimbursed for the same meals, although they could just as easily have had their meals where the RCMP indicated. The Grievor requested that the External Review Committee hold a hearing and call witnesses.

The Level I Adjudicator misinterpreted the RCMP Act. The Grievor was not required to submit reasons in support of his grievance in order to be heard. It was sufficiently clear from reading his grievance that he felt he had been wronged because he felt he was entitled to reimbursement for his meals. He was not required to respond to the claims by the opposing party. Nevertheless, the Grievor was unable to demonstrate that he was entitled to his claim. Since the meals were provided free of charge by the employer, the Treasury Board Travel Directive stipulates that no meal allowance is to be paid. The Grievor would have had to demonstrate that he had been unable to have his meals at the time and place indicated by the employer. If other members were reimbursed even though they could have had these meals free of charge, that was an error on the part of the RCMP. The request for a hearing is denied because there is no indication that the witnesses the Grievor would have testify would be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to the meal allowance claimed.

The grievance should be dismissed.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

[TRADUCTION] The Commissioner explained that [the member] had been told well before his stay in Ottawa that his meals would be provided when he was on duty on Parliament Hill. In addition, the policy established by the Treasury Board clearly states that a traveller is not entitled to reimbursement for meals that are provided free of charge, as was the situation in this case.

Accordingly, the Commissioner denied the grievance.