Grievance Case Summary - G-450

The Grievor worked at an isolated post in Nunavut. The Force gave him a travel advance for an upcoming vacation to Cancun, Mexico. When he returned, his unit commander approved his claim. The Respondent later altered the claim by omitting various expenses that were incurred on the first day in Cancun. As a result, the Grievor ended up owing the Force money.

The Grievor submitted a Level I grievance. He indicated that the Force had reimbursed similar expenses for his last several trips. He argued that when he returned from Cancun, the Force computed his claim by applying a new interpretation of the then applicable, but now inoperative, Treasury Board Isolated Posts Directive of 1991 (TB Directive). He asserted that the Force did not tell him about that new interpretation before his trip. He also urged that the Force issued a Compensation Bulletin to all employees which supported his case. That Bulletin implied that the TB Directive could be interpreted in more than one way. It also suggested that the Force had paid similar expenses before, and that those expenses should be paid consistently under the TB Directive in cases where it was reasonable to believe that they would be reimbursed.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He held that the Respondent interpreted the TB Directive properly, and that the Grievor did not show that the Force made a mistake. He further held that the Compensation Bulletin was non-binding, and that the Respondent would have exceeded her financial authority had she followed it. The Grievor filed a Level II grievance.

The Committee disagreed with the Level I Adjudicator. It found that the Grievor claimed and received an advance as per the TB Directive, that his advance included expenses that the Respondent later denied, and that the Force appeared to have paid the Grievor similar expenses in the past. The Committee reasoned that if the Force did not believe that the expenses in dispute were amounts to which the Grievor could be reimbursed, then the Grievor should have been informed of this when the advance was given. It also found that the Compensation Bulletin applied squarely to the Grievor's case and indicated that a reimbursement was proper. Upon reviewing the record, the Committee determined that the Grievor ought to be reimbursed approximately $418 of incidental and accommodation charges.

The Committee recognized that there may be situations where the Force approves an expense mistakenly, and then must refuse a claim because it has no authority to make a reimbursement. However, it found that this was an unusual situation that applied to a narrow set of circumstances which required that the Grievor be paid the disputed expenses.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance and order that the disputed expenses be reimbursed.

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

The Commissioner disagreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations and denied the grievance. He found that the TB Directive did not contemplate the reimbursement of the expenses claimed by the Grievor. Section 2.4.4. of the TB Directive, the interpretation of which was at issue in this case, did not include an entitlement to the first or last night's accommodation at a vacation destination.

With respect to the travel advance provided to the Grievor prior to the start of his trip, contrary to the Committee, the Commissioner found that this issue was not determinative. He concluded that the amount of an advance given has no direct correlation to the final expenses later approved. An advance may be seen as an authorization to travel and represents a mere estimate of expenses that may be incurred, rather than a binding advance to hold the Force accountable. While grievors may be able to provide estimates within cents of their final claims, they need to justify and account for their spending upon their return.

The Grievor asserted that others' claims based on the same reasoning as his own had been approved in the past. The Respondent stated that if other members had their similar claims paid, this was done in error. In the Commissioner's view, there was no evidence in the grievance file relating to who else might have filed a claim, how similar that claim might have been, and whether the full amount was indeed covered. The Commissioner noted that, while consistency is an element towards which the Force should strive, there was not enough information in the file to determine whether the Grievor's claim was the exception to an unwritten rule, or whether others' claims were not as similar to the Grievor's as suggested. The Commissioner also noted that, generally, the consideration of other files is irrelevant. Each matter should be considered on its own merits.

As for Compensation Bulletin 2006-006, the Commissioner noted that it was issued after the grievance was filed and the time to present Level I submissions had passed. As the Bulletin was not in existence at the time the Respondent made her decision to disallow part of the Grievor's expense claim, the Commissioner found that it would be unreasonable to hold the Respondent to a document that she could not have known about at the time of making her decision. While the Commissioner acknowledged that the content of the Bulletin substantiated that there were issues with respect to consistent reimbursement of travel expenses under the TB Directive, the Bulletin only set out a recommendation. In addition, the Bulletin could not authorize a payment which was contrary to the TB Directive.