Grievance Case Summary - G-360

The Grievor received a transfer in 2002, which transfer included a relocation. Upon arrival at his new place of duty, the Grievor submitted a claim for reimbursement of expenses under the Integrated Relocation Program-Pilot-RCMP and GOC-April 1, 2002 ("IRP 2002"). Four days of interim accommodation and one day's meal and incidental expenses were denied on the basis that the Grievor had failed to seek prior approval of the expenses and that he and his family had access to their beds during these days.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Grievor was required to seek prior approval for the expenses. He also found that the expenses were not necessary and their reimbursement would not be reasonable.

The Committee found that section 4 of the IRP 2002 was in no way clear about what prior approval was needed before items were reimbursed. It was reasonable for the Grievor to think that, as long as he stayed within the limit prescribed, he did not need specific approval.

Further the Committee found that the policy stated that interim accommodation would be provided when members were necessarily separated from their household goods. The test applied by the Respondent that interim accommodation would be provided only when beds were disassembled, was a change to the policy requirement.

The Committee recognized that s.4.01 of the IRP 2002 provided the Force with a departmental prerogative on the duration and type of interim accommodation used, however, it noted that discretion cannot be exercised in an unfair or arbitrary matter. Where the Force had decided to reimburse members for less than what appeared as entitlements in the IRP 2002, it should have made sure that members were properly informed.

The grievance should be allowed.

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

First, the Commissioner indicated that he was maintaining his position regarding members' obligations to fully inform themselves with respect to the policies applicable to their particular circumstances. However, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the question of prior approval pursuant to the IRP 2002 was confusing. The Commissioner believed that the reason the Grievor did not seek prior approval resides in the simple fact that it was not clear whether prior approval was required in all cases.

The Commissioner ruled that while some loading did occur on July 5, 2002, the Grievor also travelled on that day, making it the first travel day. Accordingly, the Grievor should be payed the full ILM&I expenses for July 2, 2002, since the policy allowed for three days of packing and loading at the old post. As for the interim lodging, despite the fact that the beds and linen were available, the Commissioner ruled that the lodging expenses were reasonable. Accordingly, he allowed the reimbursement of lodging for July 3, 2002, as well as for July 16 and 17, 2002.

In conclusion, the Commissioner addressed the Level I adjudicator's additional comments and analysis of items in the Grievor's expense claim that were not the subject of the grievance and the adjudicator's conclusions regarding the Grievor's motives. The Commissioner condemned the Level I adjudicator's character attack, speculation and improper considerations. He reminded all decision-makers that they must remain neutral as they are charged with the duty of producing well-reasoned and objective decisions on matters before them. They are expected to demonstrate the highest level of integrity and professionalism in the performance of their functions.

The grievance was allowed.