Grievance Case Summary - G-365

The Grievor requested an advance for a vacation trip for his dependants pursuant to the Isolated Post Directive (IPD) based on a maximum entitlement that would have included the full economy airfare for his three dependent children. He made that request after the distribution of an IP Bulletin on December 17, 2003, which stated that when calculating maximum entitlements for reimbursement for travel from isolated posts, the fares for any children would be the discounted airfares instead of the full economy fares as claimed by the Grievor. The Grievor made it clear that he was not asking for a personal gain and that he would be accountable for the moneys spent including any overpayment.

The Level I Adjudicator decided that the grievance was not presented within the required 30 days which was calculated from the date of the receipt of the IP Bulletin. He also stated that had it been presented within 30 days, he would have denied it on the merits, as the "maximum entitlements had to take into account the existing discounts", because "the entitlement cannot exceed the expense incurred".

The Committee found that the statutory time limit of 30 days was respected. It began to run as of the date that the Grievor received his answer to his request for an advance for vacation travel under the Isolated Post Directive, 1991, and not as of the date that he received a general bulletin sent to his Division on how the reimbursement would be calculated.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner rule on the merits and deny the grievance. However, if the Commissioner was inclined to allow the grievance, the Committee stated that it should be sent back to Level I, because the Respondent had not yet had a chance to be heard on the merits.

The Committee found that there is no guidance in the IPD on how an advance is to be calculated, and there is nothing to suggest that the Force acted unfairly or inappropriately. The Committee also found that the calculation of the maximum amount to be reimbursed for vacation travel from an isolated post should be based on actual costs and the evidence was that children fares were discounted by the airline.

The grievance should be denied on its merits.

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

On the issue of time limits, the Commissioner disagreed with both the Respondent and the Level I Adjudicator that the 30-day limitation period started when the IPA bulletin was distributed to the Grievor on December 17, 2003. The Commissioner ruled that the limitation period started on February 13, 2004, when the Grievor was denied the advance for the full fare of his children's airfare.

As for the merits, the Commissioner ruled that the Respondent's application of the IPA bulletin did not breach the Grievor's entitlement to claim a full fare return economy air fare without restrictions. The RCMP did indeed use "a full fare return economy air fare without restrictions", which for children happened to be the adult's fare minus a discount. For the Grievor to ask to be reimbursed the equivalent of an adult's airfare for the fare of a child would not only be unjustified, but it would also amount to an entitlement exceeding the expense actually incurred, which is against policy.

Accordingly, the Respondent correctly calculated the Grievor's maximum entitlement.

The grievance was denied on the merits.