Grievance Case Summary - G-371

In 2002, the Grievor claimed reimbursement for meals for days while on a secondment to a provincial court. His supervisor had certified that he was on authorized travel while performing services and that the meal prices were reasonable and just. The supervisor advised that the Grievor did not control his own timetable or transportation. On February 20, 2002, the Respondent replied that the Grievor was responsible for his own meals while at the courthouse. As requested, the Grievor delayed filing a grievance while the supervisor tried to resolve the dispute. While no new information was presented, the Respondent responded again on March 4, 2002 advising that the Grievor was responsible for his meals, as he was not on travel status. The grievance was received April 25, 2002.

The Level I Adjudicator decided that the grievance was not presented within the required 30 days as calculated from February 20, 2002 when the Respondent first denied the claim. He also found that the Grievor had failed to establish an entitlement to a mid-shift meal within the tenets of the relevant policy.

The Committee found that the Grievor did not submit his grievance within the statutory time limit. The Committee also agreed that an attempt to informally resolve the dispute did not act to extend the 30-day time limit. However, the Committee recommended that the Commissioner use his authority under section 47.4 of the RCMP Act to extend the 30-day time limit. The circumstances indicated that the Grievor withheld the filing of his grievance at his supervisor's request. As a result, the Committee believed that these circumstances justified the extension of the time limit to allow the Commissioner to rule on the merits of the grievance.

The Committee found that under the Treasury Board Travel Directive, the Treasury Board Minutes no. 704761 and no. 710531 and chapter VI.I of the RCMP Administration Manual, the Grievor was responsible for his midshift meals. The Force would reimburse the cost of a meal only where some exceptional event made it impossible for the member to have the meal as planned, and required the member to purchase a meal. The Committee found that the Grievor did not provide any information that would show that reimbursement of his meal expense claim was justified.

The grievance should be denied.

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

On the issue of time limits, the Commissioner ruled that while the Grievor knew he was aggrieved on February 21, 2002, his supervisor suggested that he delay the presentation of his grievance. The Commissioner believed that the Grievor acted in good faith by delaying his grievance, as did the supervisor when attempting to resolve the matter informally. The result was that the Grievor missed the statutory time limit, but the Commissioner believed that the circumstances in this matter justified an extension of the limitation period pursuant to section 47.4(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the grievance was considered timely, and the Commissioner addressed the merits.

As for the merits, the Commissioner ruled that the Grievor failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to be reimbursed for the meal expenses he was claiming. While the Grievor relied entirely on a specific section of the applicable policy, the Commissioner ruled that the section did not apply to the Grievor's situation. Indeed, when seconded to provincial court duties, the Grievor was not in travel status. Furthermore, this provision did not stand alone. It must be read in conjunction with the other provisions in the policy.

Finally, the Commissioner found that there was a serious lack of evidence presented by the Grievor to support his claims. He did not clearly indicate the basis for his grievance. Accordingly, there was simply no justification or rationale provided for any of the claims, as required by section 34 of the Financial Administration Act.

The grievance was therefore denied.