Grievance Case Summary - G-432

The Member grieved his transfer to a post that was about a five-hour drive away from his current residence. He was nonetheless ordered to report for duty at the new post. Prior to reporting he asked the Respondent to compensate him for the time required to travel between his current residence and the new post. On October 8, 2002, the Respondent denied the request. The Grievor commenced his first shift at the new post four days later.

In March 2003 the Grievor submitted thirteen claims for overtime for the time spent travelling each week between his residence and the new grieved post. The Respondent denied the overtime claims. The Grievor presented his grievance within four weeks of the time that he claimed he received this denial.

Referability: The Committee found that the grievance involved the Force's interpretation and application of the Treasury Board Management of Overtime Policy, and therefore it was referable to the Committee under section 36(a) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations.

Time Limit: The Committee found that the grievance was not presented at Level I within the statutory time limit. The time began to run as of the October 2002 denial of his request. The Committee has previously held that if a claim is submitted after a decision to deny such a claim has already been communicated, then the rejection of that subsequent claim does not give rise to a new right to grieve (ERC 2500-97-002 (G-222), ERC 2900-02-001 (G-280)). There was no explanation for the delay in grieving the October 8, 2002 decision, nor any extenuating circumstances that would justify extending the time limit to grieve, pursuant to section 47.4(1) of the Act.

Comments on the Merits of the Grievance: The Committee concluded that it was not in a position to make any findings on the merits of the grievance. By way of comment, the Committee identified problems with the grievance on the merits. In particular, issues pertaining to gaps in explanations on the record, rationales as to the choice of accommodation; an absence of reply to the Grievor's claim that the Force said it would only reimburse his expenses for the days he worked, and not for his regular time off; and the insufficiency of policy guidance on the issue of time for travel in these circumstances.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance because it was not presented at Level I within the statutory time limit. The Committee also recommended that the Commissioner undertake a review of the issue of compensation for travel time with the view of providing clearer and more comprehensive policy direction on the issue. The Committee also recommended that the Commissioner urge that decisions made on issues such as travel and relocation entitlements be confirmed in writing to avoid the lack of clarity that exists in the present file.

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

In a decision dated May 16, 2011, the Commissioner agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations and denied the grievance, due to the Grievor's failure to present the grievance at Level I within the 30-day time limit prescribed by paragraph 31(2)(a) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

The Commissioner found that RCMP grievance jurisprudence made it clear that once the Grievor was informed that expenses he wished to claim would not be authorized he was aggrieved, and the time limit for filing a grievance began to run. Even though the Grievor may have been attempting, through his SRR, to informally negotiate a resolution (which is highly desirable), the Grievor should have filed his grievance or protected his rights by seeking an extension of time limits.

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee's further recommendations. He directed a review of travel and overtime policies with a view to providing clearer and more comprehensive policy direction, and stated that decisions respecting entitlements to members should be confirmed in writing.