Grievance Case Summary - G-386

The Grievor was deployed to Haiti for what he expected to be a nine-month rotation. He was repatriated early at the request of the Respondent. He grieved, claiming he had lost a variety of non-taxable wage allowances payable under the Military Foreign Service Instructions, the monthly United Nations Subsistence Allowance as well a travel benefit to which he would have been entitled under Treasury Board policy if he had remained deployed for the full nine months.

The Committee found that the grievance did not involve the interpretation of either of the two relevant policies, the Foreign Service Directive and the Military Foreign Service Instructions. Rather, what the Grievor complained of was the decision to withdraw him from the deployment earlier than he expected and earlier than the scheduled length of the deployment. The authority to limit or cancel the deployment came from an unwritten policy based within the Force.

The Committee concludes that it could not provide findings and recommendations on this grievance because it is not one that is referable to the Committee according to section 36 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations.

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

The Commissioner concurred with the ERC's finding that grievance G-386 is not a grievance within the scope of section 36 of the RCMP Regulations. The decision to shorten or terminate the Grievor's deployment was not dependent upon the interpretation or application of the Foreign Service Directives and/or the Military Foreign Service Instructions. The grievance was directed to the designated Level II adjudicator.