Grievance Case Summary - G-341

After being transferred to a new workplace, the Grievor was authorized to stay in a hotel with his spouse and two children for 21 days until being able to move into his new home, and the Respondent agreed to reimburse him for meals and incidental expenses during this period. The Grievor then asked for a 14-day extension to his interim accommodations. The Respondent approved the extension, but indicated that the Grievor would not receive any allowance for meals or incidental expenses. At the Grievor's request, the Respondent clarified the next day that this only applied to the additional 14-day period. The claim later submitted by the Grievor included compensation for 21 days of meals and incidental expenses. The Respondent denied this part of the claim on the grounds that it had previously indicated that the Grievor would not be reimbursed for meals and incidental expenses. A Staff Relations Representative (SRR) who the Grievor consulted told him that he would try to get the decision reversed. One month later, he informed the Grievor that he had been unsuccessful. The Grievor then presented a grievance. The Level I adjudicator found that the grievance was inadmissible because it had not been presented within 30 days of the date he learned of that decision, as required under the RCMP Act. At Level II, the Grievor argued that the 30-day time limit only started when the SRR informed him that he had been unsuccessful in getting the decision reversed.

The grievance was not presented in time at Level I. The Grievor should have presented his grievance as soon as he was informed of the Respondent's decision, instead of waiting for the SRR to tell him whether he had succeeded in getting the decision reversed. However, the Commissioner should consider extending the time limit, as the RCMP Act allows him to do, since there was miscommunication between the Grievor and the SRR and the case raises an important question about the interpretation of the Integrated Relocation Program. As for the merits of the grievance, the Respondent should have met the commitment it made to the Grievor to reimburse him for meals and incidental expenses during the first 21 days of his interim accommodations. This was also a requirement under section 4.22 of the Integrated Relocation Program.

The time limit for presenting a grievance at Level I should be extended, and the grievance should be allowed.

The Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

[TRANSLATION] The Commissioner agreed with the Committee's finding about the time limit requirement and with the recommendation to retroactively extend the time limit for presenting the grievance at Level I. He noted, however, that attempts to resolve the matter informally do not extend the time limits for presenting a grievance. It is up to the members themselves and the staff relations representatives who try to resolve a matter informally to protect the grievance right and meet the requirements of section 31(2) of the Act , regardless of any informal procedure.

As for the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations and allowed the grievance.