Grievance Case Summary - G-470

The Grievor filed a grievance against the Respondent's decision not to reimburse his travel expenses in accordance with the Isolated Posts Directive of 1991 (IPD). In his grievance, the Grievor explained the established practice at his detachment concerning reimbursement of annual travel expenses under the IPD to which the members were entitled. By alternating claims for each of their family members, the members at the detachment could be reimbursed for travel expenses a number of times in one fiscal year, even though they were entitled to only one trip. Accordingly, a member of the Grievor's family submitted a claim for reimbursement for a second annual family trip, even though that member had already taken a family trip that had been reimbursed. The Respondent denied the request for reimbursement on the grounds that it was not allowed under the IPD and that the former practice was incorrect. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, because the way expenses had been reimbursed in the past violated the provisions of the IPD. The Grievor filed a Level II grievance, claiming that he had taken the second trip before the Respondent changed its application of the IPD.

The ERC found that the IPD did not entitle the Grievor to receive reimbursement for expenses incurred during the second trip in the same fiscal year through a claim submitted by a family member. That family member had taken a family trip earlier in the year and those expenses had been reimbursed. Consequently, he could not submit a claim for a second trip during the same fiscal year. Despite the fact that the second trip was taken before the Grievor learned that the RCMP had changed its application of the IPD, the Force discovered the error before receiving the second claim. Therefore, the Force could not issue a reimbursement to which the member was not entitled. However, the ERC noted that the Grievor had not included all possible expenses in his claim for the first trip, believing that the former practice would be maintained. The ERC recommended that the RCMP Commissioner give the Grievor an opportunity to submit an amended claim for the first trip.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance. However, it also recommended that the Commissioner give the Grievor an opportunity to submit an amended claim for the trip of July 16 to 23, 2004.

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

[TRANSLATION]

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Isolated Posts Directive of 1991 did not entitle the Grievor to receive reimbursement for expenses incurred during the second trip. The Commissioner found that since the Grievor's daughter had accompanied her parents in July 2004 on a trip for which the costs were reimbursed, she could not submit a claim for a second family trip during the same fiscal year.

However, the Commissioner did not agree with the ERC’s recommendation to give the Grievor, as part of this grievance, an opportunity to submit an amended claim for the trip of July 16 to 23, 2004. The Commissioner considered that the reimbursement of specific expenses that he had not claimed at that time was not the subject of this grievance and was not a remedy that was sought by the Grievor.

Consequently, the Commissioner denied the grievance.