Grievance Case Summary - G-461

The Grievor worked at an isolated post. The Force gave him permission, and an advance, for upcoming vacation travel. When the Grievor returned from his trip, his supervisor signed the expense claim. The Respondent refused to process the claim, allegedly because the Grievor did not seek expenses in a manner that complied with the Treasury Board Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive of 2003 (IPGHD 2003). The IPGHD 2003, which is now inoperative, applied at the time.

The Grievor filed a Level I grievance. He argued that the Respondent incorrectly interpreted the IPGHD 2003, wrongly decided that he was not entitled to full compensation for his vacation travel expenses and refused to cover his claim. He further asserted that the Respondent was not the proper responding party. He urged that she merely oversaw accounting matters, whereas the grievance was really about the Force's flawed implementation of the IPGHD 2003, particularly its failure to deliver required orientation sessions clarifying that authority. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He found that the Respondent was an appropriate responding party. He held that the Grievor did not show that the Force failed to address his claim in accordance with policy. He further held that the Respondent applied the IPGHD 2003 soundly, fairly and correctly.

The Grievor presented a Level II grievance. He revisited his concern about the Respondent's status, arguing that she did not have the financial authority to decide the Grievor's claim.

The ERC found that the Respondent was the proper responding party, as well as the appropriate authority to process the Grievor's expense claim. It also found that the RCMP did not meet its duty to inform members assigned to an isolated post about vacation travel expense changes arising from the IPGHD 2003's implementation. However, it did not agree that the Force should reimburse the Grievor's full claim, and possibly disregard IPGHD 2003 limitations and rules in so doing, on that basis. It noted that members must familiarize themselves with the directives in place, including directives which are known to be coming into force and are available. The ERC also pointed out that, unlike in recent, similar cases before it, there did not appear to be any Compensation Bulletins, or other authorities, which applied to the Grievor's situation and which suggested that a full reimbursement was appropriate in the circumstances. It concluded that the claim had to be processed as per the IPGHD 2003.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance in part. It suggested that the Commissioner ensure that mechanisms are in place within the Force to properly and fully inform all members, and especially members at isolated posts, about policy requirements, entitlements and significant changes to same. It further recommended that a specialist help the Grievor properly resubmit his claim.

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 concluded that the Grievor knew his claim would be processed under the Treasury Board Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive, 2003 and that he should have been familiar with its provisions even though no orientation session had been provided.

The Commissioner further concluded that the Grievor failed to establish that the Respondent erred in her interpretation of the policy. The Respondent provided correct and sound rationale consistent with Treasury Board of Canada policy and practices of the Force.