Grievance Case Summary - G-425

The Grievor drove his own car several hundred kilometers in order to attend a private course on his day off. He submitted a mileage expense claim upon his return, but the Respondent refused to approve it on the ground that the Grievor did not have authority to incur the expense.

The Grievor filed a Level I grievance. He argued that the Respondent implicitly permitted him to attend the course, and to incur the mileage expense in so doing, by advising him that he could do what he wanted on his day off and by refusing his request to take a police car to the course.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He found that the Respondent made it clear that the Grievor would not be supported in attending the course, and that members could not do as they pleased on their days off when their actions could incur financial costs to the Force. He also found that there was no factual evidence suggesting that the Respondent had misled the Grievor to believe that he was to attend the course. The Level I Adjudicator then went a step further. In finding that Treasury Board policy did not permit the Crown to spend public funds on meals and accommodation of an off-duty member attending a course voluntarily, he ordered the RCMP to recover all funds that it spent on the Grievor's course-related expenses.

The Committee found that the fact that the Grievor attended the course on his day off was irrelevant. The applicable Treasury Board and RCMP travel policies required members to obtain written pre-authorization before they traveled, and there was no evidence that the Grievor had done this. By arguing that he had received the Respondent's implicit permission to travel, the Grievor demonstrated that he was either unaware of, or that he did not properly consult the relevant travel authorities. The Commissioner of the RCMP and the Committee have stressed the importance of members becoming familiar with policies that apply to them.

The Committee further held that the Grievor's other course-related expenses fell outside the scope of the matter that the Level I Adjudicator was charged with resolving. His analysis and findings concerning this issue were likely improper considerations.

The Committee recommendeded to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he deny the grievance and that he also rescind the order for recovery of funds.

The Commissioner of the RCMP decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner denied the grievance. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Grievor was not entitled to reimbursement for private motor vehicle mileage expenses incurred while voluntarily attending a non-RCMP training course, as he did not obtain the Respondent's authorization for these expenses. The Commissioner also agreed with the ERC that the Level I Adjudicator overstepped his authority and was in error when he ordered the recovery of funds.