Grievance Case Summary - G-387

The Grievor was part of the Wilderness Team at the G8 Summit. The Force rejected his overtime claims and his claims for a per diem meal allowance and private accommodation rate that were made on the basis that the accommodation and meals were substandard. The member grieved but provided no details to support his claims. The Respondent argued that the manner in which the travel and meals were planned was justifiable under distinct portions of the Treasury Board Travel Directive (April 1, 1993) ("TBTD") and the RCMP Travel Policy (chapter VI.I of the RCMP Administration Manual) ("AM VI.I").

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis of timeliness. He found that the Grievor was advised prior to the G8 Summit that meals and accommodation would be paid for by the Force, and he should have grieved within 30 days of this advance notice. The Grievor brought a Level II grievance and provided additional evidence as to the conditions of accommodation and meals, details that were available at the time he presented his Level I grievance.

The Committee found that the Level I Adjudicator erred in making rulings on time limits without the parties being given the chance to be heard. The Level I Adjudicator also erred when he ruled that the grievance was not timely: the complaints giving rise to the grievance were based on conditions the Grievor did not encounter until he was actually living in the camp.

On the merits, the Committee found that the Grievor did not satisfy the burden of proof because he had not provided any details in support of his claims regarding the G8 Summit. General statements made by the Grievor were refuted by the Respondent. Additional submissions provided by the Grievor at Level II were known to the Grievor at the Level I stage of the grievance and should not be considered. The Committee also found that financial compensation for the substandard accommodation and meals was not authorized under either the TBTD or AM VI.I because the Grievor did not state that he had incurred expenses as a result. The Treasury Board Policy on Claims and Ex gratia Payments would also not apply, because this policy does not apply to travel claims.

The Committee recommended that the grievance 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 the limitation period started the day the Grievor reported for duty at Kananaskis. The Grievor could not reasonably have known that he was aggrieved prior to attending and experiencing the site accommodation and meal service. The grievance was therefore timely at Level I.

As for the merits, the Commissioner ruled that the Grievor did not provide details to support his allegations of substandard accommodation and meals. Although it is possible that when performing their security tasks some members, including the Grievor, were inconvenienced, all accommodation and meal services nonetheless met the principles of the TB Directive.

The Commissioner therefore denied the grievance. She further stated that even if she had allowed the grievance, financial compensation for the substandard accommodation and meals are not authorized under either the TB Directive, or the RCMP Administration Manual. Additionally, it would not be possible to make a payment under the Treasury Board's Policy on Claims and Ex gratia Payments, as it does not apply to travel claims. Compensation guidelines and policies are intended to indemnify members for actual and reasonable expenses incurred. The Grievor did not claim that he incurred additional expenses for the accommodation and meals, and there was no net financial loss on his part. Therefore, payment for expenses (accommodation and meal claims) not incurred would amount to profit, not compensation.