Grievance Case Summary - G-376

The Grievor was reimbursed for meal expenses for travel of less than one day at the allowance rates suggested by his supervisor. He then learned that members in another Division who performed the same job were reimbursed for meals at a higher rate. In his Level I grievance he asked that the Force pay him the balance between what he had already been paid for his meals, and what he would have been given if his original claim had been assessed at the higher allowance rate. He also made requests for disclosure. The Respondent argued that the Grievor was out of time because the Grievor was informed of the policy at an orientation more than thirty days before he presented his grievance. In addition, a claim for additional reimbursement could not be considered without receipts. The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor did not have standing and denied the grievance. The Griever was reimbursed for the actual costs that he incurred. It was irrelevant that other members have been reimbursed for meals at different rates. The Grievor presented the grievance to Level II.

The grievance was timely because it had been presented within thirty days of the denial of his request for additional reimbursement in the name of financial parity.

The Grievor has standing. He was aggrieved by the Respondent's decision to deny the claim for additional reimbursement. This affected him personally, regardless of arguments on the merits.

The manner in which the requests for disclosure were handled was acceptable. The Respondent directed the Grievor to the copy of the Treasury Board Travel Directive ("TBTD") on the Treasury Board website to address his request for the rationale for travel. He also advised the Grievor that the basis of both Divisions' travel decisions was the TBTD. The budget documents requested by the Grievor were not relevant to the grievance and the request for any further information that will support my case..." was too vague.

Based on past recommendations, the Committee found that the TBTD must be read in light 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. 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 The TBTD could not of itself have rescinded the TBMs, and there is no evidence that Treasury Board has rescinded the TBMs. On the days for which he is claiming reimbursement for meal expenses, the Grievor was on the travel status defined in section 4(2)(d) of the TBMs. He was on a "round trip journey" that took place on the same day, and could not be said to have remained "in the vicinity of the Worksite". Following the Committee and Commissioner recommendation in ERC 2200-00-003/4/5/6 (G-256-7-8-9), to incorporate the spirit of the new TBTD into the interpretation of the TBMs would require the Force to recognize that for travel outside headquarters areas-no overnight stay, members may be entitled to a meal allowance rather than being reimbursed only for actual costs incurred and no receipt was necessary. The Grievor's district also erred by using a dinner rate lower than the TB allowance rate, but it was reasonable to use allowance rates set in Canadian dollars, because the travel was both in Canada and the U.S.

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 recommends to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance and order that the Grievor's claims be reassessed using the Treasury Board allowance rates as per the applicable Appendix C of the Treasury Board Travel Directive, effective October 1, 2002.

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

The Commissioner first issued a decision on a collateral issue to the grievance, relative to the absence of relevant documentation from the file. Using the authority conferred by s. 11 of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances), 1990, the Commissioner directed that the parties submit all of the relevant meal claims, i.e. the “original claims” for which the Grievor was reimbursed a total amount of $8,428.19, and the “re-submitted claims” denied by the Respondent, seeking compensation in the amount of $1,976.38. The meal claims were submitted, as directed.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Level I Adjudicator erred in concluding that the Grievor did not have standing to present his grievance. The Grievor had a personal interest in the grievance and the Respondent’s decision had a negative personal impact on him.

The review of the meal claims showed that, contrary to the Committee’s finding, most of the meals were taken and reimbursed prior to the coming into effect of the new TBTD on October 1, 2002. Their reimbursement was therefore governed by the previous TBTD. (The Committee applied the new TBTD to all of the meal claims.) Applying the “old” TBTD rules to these 86 meals, the Commissioner found that the Grievor could be reimbursed for actual expenses only and that the Respondent was justified in asking him for receipts. The Commissioner therefore denied the part of the grievance relative to these meals. He noted however that the Grievor could still be reimbursed for his actual expenses, should they exceed the amount he already received, upon submission of the relevant receipts to the Respondent.

The remaining meals claimed by the Grievor were taken after October 1, 2002, and were therefore reimbursable pursuant to the new TBTD. For these 28 meals, the Commissioner concluded that the Grievor could claim the meal allowances as per Appendix C of the new TBTD, without having to produce receipts. The Commissioner therefore allowed the grievance in part with respect to these meals. The Commissioner directed that the sum of $139.05 be paid to the Grievor, representing the difference between the amount he had already received, and the amount he should have received pursuant to the TB meal allowances. However, the Commissioner rejected the Grievor’s argument that the Treasury Board meal allowances should have been converted to U.S. dollars. As stated by the Committee, it was reasonable to use allowance rates set in Canadian dollars because the travel was both in Canada and the U.S.

The Commissioner also directed that a review be performed of all Treasury Board and RCMP policies related to RCMP travel, in order to confirm the status of the Treasury Board Minutes, establish a clear framework for assessing claims related to RCMP travel, and recommend changes to the applicable policies to address any contradictions or inconsistencies.