Grievance Case Summary - G-463

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, wrongly decided that he was not entitled to full compensation for his vacation travel expenses and refused to cover his claim. He asserted that the Respondent did not have authority to interpret or administer the IPGHD 2003. He also submitted that the Force did a poor job of implementing the IPGHD 2003, and of explaining vacation travel claim changes. He added that his family journey included only one vacation destination, and not multiple destinations as determined by the Respondent. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He found that the Respondent was a proper responding party. He held that the Grievor did not show that the Force failed to address his claim in accordance with policy. He also held that the Respondent applied the IPGHD 2003 soundly, fairly and correctly. Lastly, he noted that the Grievor and his family had taken a trip with varying departure and arrival dates at various destinations and routes.

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 pay the Grievor's full claim, and possibly disregard IPGHD 2003 limitations and rules in so doing, on that basis. It explained that members must familiarize themselves with the directives in place, including those which are known to be coming into force and are available. It observed that, unlike in recent, similar cases, there did not seem to be any Compensation Bulletins, or other authorities, which applied to the Grievor's situation and which suggested that full payment was appropriate in the circumstances. It concluded that the claim had to be processed as per the IPGHD 2003. It stated that in deciding if the Grievor's family's trip was to one or several destinations, the Force should choose the application most beneficial to the Grievor.

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

In a decision dated October 6, 2011, the Commissioner denied the grievance. He agreed that the correct Respondent was named in the matter.

The Commissioner found that the Grievor knew his claim would be processed under the Treasury Board Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive, 2003 (IPGHD), and should have been familiar with its provisions even though no orientation session had been provided. The Grievor should have sought advice on the Directive’s interpretation if he was unclear about its provisions.

The Commissioner did not agree with the Grievor’s argument that he relied on an advance he was given, and stated that a travel advance is not determinative of expense entitlements.

The Commissioner found that the Grievor failed to establish that the Respondent erred in her interpretation of the IPGHD., and provided no support (based on the IPGHD) for his assertion that flights, meals, and other travel expenses to the multiple locations visited on his trip should be reimbursed.

In any event, the Commissioner noted that the Respondent did not deny the Grievor’s entire claim, but asked him to resubmit his expense form in accordance with the IPGHD. Accordingly, the Commissioner encouraged the Grievor to resubmit his claim, so that it could be processed in accordance with the IPGHD, and agreed with the ERC’s recommendation that an expense claims specialist could provide assistance to the Grievor, should he require help in filing his claim.