Grievance Case Summary - G-372

The Grievor was transferred in 2002. In the course of the transfer, he was separated from his household goods and effects for 24 days. During this time, the Grievor and his family resided in interim accommodation.

The Grievor sought to be reimbursed for Interim Lodgings, Meals and Incidentals ( ILM&I) for the full 24 days, 3 days beyond the normal 21 day period provided for under the Integrated Relocation Program-Pilot-RCMP and GOC-April 1, 2002 (IRPP-April 1, 2002). His entitlement to be reimbursed for accommodation was not in issue, however a dispute arose over his entitlement to the meal allowance.

Section 4.24 of the IRPP-April 1, 2002 provided that there was a discretion to authorize meal entitlement past 21 days, subject to one of two conditions: Either (i) there was no suitable accommodation with adequate cooking facilities located within 16 km (one-way) of the transferee's place of work; or (ii) the transferee was unable to secure adequate accommodation with cooking facilities on or before the 22nd day of interim accommodation although such accommodation exists within 16 km of the place of work. On the basis that the Grievor's accommodation included full cooking facilities, the meal claim for the extra three days was denied.

As the grievance was filed 31 days after the Grievor became aware of the denial, the Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor did not present the grievance within the time limit of thirty days as set out in Section 31(2) of the RCMP Act.

The Grievor filed a grievance form 15 days after he was served with the Level I decision, however the form was not properly completed. The Grievor objected to the Respondent's rationale for the denial on the basis that the hotel room he resided in did not have a full kitchen. He provided no other details.

The Committee found that the technical flaw in the Level II presentation should not be held against the Grievor, but found that the Grievor missed the time limits imposed by the RCMP Act for the presentation of grievance at both Levels I and II. Although the delay in both cases was minimal, the Grievor had not provided any explanation as to why he was late in presenting his grievance, and there was no indication on the record that he otherwise intended to meet the statutory requirements. Moreover, the Grievor failed to respect the time limit at Level II, even though the Level I adjudicator had drawn to his attention the importance of timeliness by denying his grievance on that very basis. For these reasons, the Committee did not recommend that the Commissioner provide an extension pursuant to s.47.4 of the RCMP Act.

The Committee found that the grievance also failed on the merits. The Grievor was in the best position to explain how his kitchen, if less than full, failed to meet the criteria of accommodation with "adequate cooking facilities". In addition, the Grievor would have had to establish that no other suitable accommodation within 16 km of his place of work contained adequate cooking facilities, or alternatively, that such accommodations existed but could not been obtainable in the first twenty-one days of his stay.

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 found that the Grievor missed the limitation period by one (1) day at both levels of the grievance process. The Grievor never explained why he missed the limitation periods by one (1) day.

While the Commissioner had the authority to provide an extension pursuant to subsection 47.4(1) of the Act, the Grievor presented no reasons to justify such an extension. Accordingly, the Commissioner ruled that the circumstances in this case did not justify a one-day extension to the limitation periods at either Level I or Level II. The grievance was therefore denied on the issue of timeliness.

The Commissioner did, however, comment on the merits of the grievance. She stated that the Grievor failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to have his meals reimbursed for all 24 days. Even if she had accepted the claim that during his stay at the hotel the Grievor had no access to adequate cooking facilities, he still failed to provide evidence that there were no accommodations with adequate cooking facilities within 16 km of his place of work. He also failed to demonstrate that the RLR Consultant had confirmed that he was unable to obtain such facilities on or before the 22^nd day of interim accommodation, although such accommodation existed within 16 km of the place of work. Those were the two requirements of the IRPP.