Grievance Case Summary - G-375

The Grievor was advised by memo in late 2003 that members would be responsible for their mid-shift meals when scheduled for routine patrol. In February 2004, within thirty days of having been denied an expense claim for mid shift meals, the Grievor filed a grievance for reimbursement of $99.00 as well as reimbursement on future claims. He argued that the Force should reimburse him because it was impossible for him to return home and the vehicles were not equipped to carry prepared meals. On the request of the Level I Adjudicator, the Grievor provided a list of all traffic violations prepared on the days that he was requesting reimbursement for a mid-shift meal. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance because the request for future claims was outside his authority, and because the Treasury Board Travel Directive (TBTD) (October 1, 2002) and the RCMP Administrative Manual (AM) VI.I did not authorize payment of the Grievor's claim. In addition, the traffic ticket information showed that it would have been possible for the Grievor to organize his patrol duties in a way that would have allowed him to have the mid-shift meals at home. The Grievor brought a Level II grievance that was dated within the fourteen day time limit, but was not received until after the time had expired.

The Committee found that the Level I grievance was timely because it was within thirty days of the time that the expense claim was denied. The Level II grievance was out of time, but section 47.4 of the RCMP Act should be applied to extend the time limit, given that there was some doubt as to whether the delay was entirely the fault of the Grievor. On the merits, based on past recommendations, the Committee found that the TBTD must be read in light of section 4(2)(d) and 4(3) of the Treasury Board Minutes no.704761 and no. 710531 (" TBMs"). Where there is a discrepancy between the TBTD and the TBMs, it is the TBMs that govern. Where there is a discrepancy with the RCMP AM VI.I and the TB documents, the TB documents prevail. Furthermore, the TBTD, effective October 1, 2002 must be read in light of the TBMs. The TBTD could not of itself have rescinded the TBMs, and there is no evidence that Treasury Board has rescinded the TBMs.

Following the Committee and Commissioner recommendation in ERC 2200-00-003/4/5/6 (G-256-7-8-9), to incorporate the spirit fo the new TBTD into the interpretation of the TBMs would require the Force to recognize that in certain cases of travel of less than one day, members may be entitled to a meal allowance rather than being reimbursed only for actual costs incurred. In this case however, the record does not contain adequate information for the Commissioner to decide the grievance on the merits. There were other factors, apart from those highlighted by the Level I Adjudicator, that may be relevant to sections 4(2)(d) and 4(3) of the TBMS that were not addressed.

Given the uncertainty and confusion surrounding the question of what TB and RCMP policies apply to RCMP travel, and how the applicable policies are to be interpreted, the Committee recommends that the Commissioner order a review of all TB and RCMP policies related to RCMP travel. Such a review would confirm the status of the TBMs, establish a clearer framework for assessing claims related to RCMP travel, and recommend changes to the applicable policies to address contradictions and inconsistencies. A more coherent and transparent travel policy would be of benefit to the RCMP, both for those making claims and for those assessing claims.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance and order that the Griever's request for reimbursement of meal expenses be returned to the centre responsible for the original decision so that a new decision can be made in accordance with the applicable law and policies. The Grievor should be given the chance to make submissions, as it appears that he was not fully informed about what policies applied to his claims.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarixed by his office is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee's finding that the grievance was presented at Level II outside the fourteen-day statutory time limit. However, the Commissioner disagreed with the Committee's recommendation to retroactively extend the time limit, concluding that the record did not establish circumstances justifying an extension.

The Commissioner noted that the Grievor failed to present his grievance at Level II in due time despite being cautioned to do so by the Labour Relations Unit (LRU). The Grievor was also given two opportunities by the LRU to justify the lateness of his grievance presentation at Level II, but failed to do so. The Commissioner concluded that if the Grievor's supervisor was responsible for the delay in the grievance presentation, the Grievor would have made that argument in response to the LRU's invitations for submissions. Furthermore, the Grievor did not have to rely on his supervisor to present his grievance in due time since, pursuant to RCMP policy (AM II.38. G.1.b), he could have sent the grievance form himself to the LRU.