Grievance Case Summary - G-396

The Grievor was lodged at three different sites while working at the G8 Summit. The Force rejected his overtime claim and a travel claim for allowances for meals and private accommodation. He presented a grievance dated July 16, 2002, but stamp-dated as received on August 13, 2002, stating that he knew or would have known he was aggrieved as of July 16, 2002. He requested compensation for substandard accommodation and meal services as well as overtime payments. Conditions alleged by the Grievor included sharing a small room, having no hot water, inadequate meals, excessive noise, being in uniform 20 hours a day, no heat, showers or hot water and no unfettered time off. The Respondent argued that the manner in which the travel and meals were planned was justifiable under portions of the Treasury Board Travel Directive (April 1, 1993) ("TBTD") and the RCMP Travel Policy (chapter VI.I of the RCMP Administrative Manual) ("AM VI.I"). He also submitted that the overtime was properly paid in accordance with the RCMP Overtime Policy. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He found that the member should have presented the grievance at the time of receiving advance joining instructions. The Grievor presented a Level II grievance.

The Committee found that the Level I Adjudicator erred in making rulings on timeliness without the parties being given the chance to be heard on that issue. In addition, the complaints that gave rise to the grievance did not occur until the Grievor was at the G8 Summit and in any event, the Grievor states that he did not receive information in advance of the G8 Summit and therefore the Level I Adjudicator was in error. However, there were still issues of timeliness at Level I and Level II. At Level I, the Grievor knew or ought to have known that he was aggrieved before July 16, 2002 and therefore had not respected the statutory time limit because the grievance was presented on August 13, 2002. The Committee recommends that the Commissioner extend the time under section 47.4 of the Act since the record indicates that the Grievor formulated the intention to grieve within the thirty day limit. In addition, the determination of the question is of broad importance to the RCMP. The Level II grievance is dated February 7, 2005 but was stamp-dated received on March 7, 2005. It is therefore out of time, but since the record shows that it was sent within the time limit, it is recommended that section 47.4 of the Act be applied to extend the time.

On the application of the TBTD and AM VI.I, the Committee found that the unique challenges presented by the G8 Summit being held at a remote and environmentally sensitive location justified the requirement that the members stay in non-commercial accommodation. However, the Grievor established that the Force did not provide him with accommodation and meal services that met the minimum Treasury Board and RCMP requirements. Nonetheless, the Grievor is not entitled to financial compensation under the TBTD or under the TB Policy on Claims and Ex gratia Payments. Regarding overtime, the Committee found that the TB and RCMP overtime policies would not allow the Force to pay the Grievor as if he was working when he was on Standby Level I. However, the Grievor's submission indicates that he was called upon to work during periods that he was on Standby Level I. It is recommended that if this is the case, he should be compensated for the time that he worked in the hours that he was on Standby Level I.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance as it related to time worked while on Standby Level I and refer the matter to the authority that will be able to determine the amount owing. The Committee also recommended that the Commissioner acknowledge to the Grievor that the Force did not provide him with appropriate meal services in accordance with the TBTD and the AM VI.I.

The Commissioner has rendered his decision, as summarized by his office:

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the Level I Adjudicator breached his duty to act fairly when he failed to provide the parties with the opportunity to present submissions on the timeliness issue. The Commissioner then went on to reach a decision on the issue of timeliness himself, rather than return the file to Level I.

The Commissioner reached the conclusion that the grievance was presented at Level I beyond the statutory time limit. In doing so, he agreed with the Committee that the time limit started to run on the last day the Grievor experienced the living conditions at the G8 Summit. Though he decided that the grievance was untimely, the Commissioner granted an extension of the time limit under the authority provided by s. 47.4(1) of the RCMP Act, as he conceded that there had been some confusion with respect to when the time limit started to run.

The Commissioner further agreed with the ERC when he decided that the grievance was also untimely at Level II. However, the Commissioner disagreed with the ERC in exercising his discretion to, once again, extend the time limit. The Commissioner concluded that the Grievor was very clearly informed that he had to respect the 14-day time limit to submit a grievance at Level II and there was no confusion with respect to when this time limit started to run.

As a result, the Commissioner denied the grievance due to the Grievor's failure to present his grievance at Level II within the prescribed time limit.