Grievance Case Summary - G-451

The Grievor worked at an isolated post in Nunavut. The Force gave him a travel advance for an upcoming vacation to Miami. When he returned from his trip, his supervisor approved his claim. The Respondent later altered the claim by omitting meal and accommodation expenses incurred on the first and last days in Miami. As a result, the Grievor owed the Force money.

The Grievor filed a Level I grievance. He argued that the Force calculated his claim by applying a new interpretation of the then applicable, but now inoperative, Treasury Board Isolated Posts Directive of 1991 (TB Directive), without notice. 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 further suggested that the Force had paid similar expenses before, and that those expenses should be paid consistently in certain cases where it was reasonable to believe that they would be recompensed.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He found that there was no evidence that the Respondent applied the TB Directive improperly, or that the Force treated the Grievor differently than other similarly-situated members. He also held that the Grievor could not claim entitlement to an expense on the basis of past errors. 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. It further found that his advance included the types of expenses that the Respondent later denied. The Committee reasoned that if the Force did not believe that it could reimburse the Grievor for those types of expenses, then it should have informed him of this when the advance was given. It also found that the Compensation Bulletin was a relevant authority which applied squarely to the Grievor's case, and that it indicated that a reimbursement was appropriate. The Committee concluded that the Grievor should be reimbursed roughly $477 for meal and accommodation costs.

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 expenses in question.

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

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

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.