Grievance Case Summary - G-409

While relocating from location A to location B, the Grievor and his wife decided to drive their family vehicles to location B instead of having them shipped. Half way between two small towns, the Grievor's car, which was pulling a trailer, experienced mechanical problems. His wife sought help in one of these towns, but there were no towing or repair facilities there. As a result, the car and trailer were towed to location B. The Grievor's claim for reimbursement of these towing expenses was denied. In his grievance, the Grievor stated that it was not an option for him to have the car and trailer towed back to location A, because if he had not been in location B to accept delivery of his household effects, he may have been subject to additional expenses. He also emphasized that the option of driving his vehicles was much less costly for the Force than the cost of having the three vehicles shipped. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He found that nothing in policy provided for the payment of the Grievor's towing costs.

The first question raised by the Grievor's claim was whether the reimbursement was provided for in applicable policy. Section 1.02.10. of the RCMP Integrated Relocation Program ("IRP") stated that relocation travel "will comply with the provisions of the current TB Travel Directive" ("TD"). The TD stated that where a member travelled in a private vehicle on official business, the employer assumed no financial responsibility for damage to a privately-owned vehicle, other than paying the authorized kilometric rate. As a result, the Committee found that the IRP and the TD did not allow the Force to pay for the Grievor's towing expenses.

The Grievor's claim then raised the question of whether the towing expenses should be paid pursuant to the IRP provision allowing for reimbursement of relocation expenses on an exceptional basis. The Grievor met the first two criteria, in that the expense was not covered by the TD, and he had acted in a fiscally responsible manner and in good faith. However, he failed to meet the third, which required that the expense fall within the purpose and scope of the TD and within its limits otherwise payable. Although the towing expense fell within the purpose and scope of the TD, it did not fall within the limits otherwise payable. The Grievor's choice of an option that was less costly to the Force did not automatically give him the right to be reimbursed if the expense was not provided for in the IRP and was not within its intent. The TD specifically and clearly limited the employer's responsibility when an employee took his own vehicle.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that the grievance be denied.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee' findings and, as recommended by the Committee, denied the grievance.