Grievance Case Summary - G-471

The Member grieved his transfer to a location approximately 90 minutes away from his current residence. He was nonetheless ordered to report to the new location, pending the disposition of his transfer grievance.

On September 27, 2002, the Respondent advised the Grievor that any time spent travelling between his current residence and the new post would not be considered as on-duty time. On October 8, 2002, the Respondent advised that the Grievor would be entitled to expenses (which included the cost of travel to and from the new post, as well as meals and accommodations at the new post). However, on November 6, 2002, the Grievor's expense claim began to be reduced by 25%. On April 1, 2003, the Grievor submitted overtime claims to compensate him for his travel time for the period October 3, 2002 to March 31, 2003. On May 12, 2003, the Grievor learned that the Respondent denied the claims.

The Grievor grieved both the 25% reduction in his expense claims, and the denial of his overtime claim. His grievance form was submitted by facsimile on June 5, 2003.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that it lacked standing because the RCMP did not have authority over the Treasury Board (TB) policies, and thus neither decision arose in the administration of the affairs fo the Force. The Level I Adjudicator also denied the grievance because it failed to comply with the statutory time limits, and it failed on the merits.

Referability: The ERC found that this grievance was referable under section 36(a) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations because it involved the Force's interpretation and application of the TB Management of Overtime Policy and the TB Travel Directive.

Standing: The ERC found that the Grievor had standing: the Grievor was a member at the relevant time; he was aggrieved by both the reduction of his expense claim and the denial of his overtime claim; both decisions were made by the Respondent who had interpreted and applied TB policies; and there was no other process for redress.

Time Limits: The ERC found that the grievance was not submitted in time, and that there was no evidence to justify recommending an extension of time pursuant to section 47.4(1) of the RCMP Act.

Comments on the Merits of the Grievance: Firstly, the Grievor did not prove that the 25% reduction in his expense claims was improper. Secondly, the record did not contain all of the information necessary to rule on the merits of the overtime claim. As well, RCMP policy lacked clear guidance regarding compensation for travel time.

The ERC recommends to the Commissioner of the RCMP that the grievance be denied because it was not presented within the statutory time limit. If the Commissioner decides to consider the merits of the grievance, the ERC recommends that the portion of the grievance related to the 25% reduction of the expense claim be denied. The ERC further recommends that the Commissioner undertake a review of the issue of compensation for travel time with a view to providing clearer and more comprehensive policy direction on the issue. The ERC further recommends that the Commissioner urge that decisions made on issues such as travel and overtime entitlements be confirmed in writing to the impacted member so as to avoid the lack of clarity that exists in this case.

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

In a decision dated January 19, 2012, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC and dismissed the grievance, as the Grievor had not presented his grievance within the statutory time limit prescribed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The Commissioner found that the delay in the matter was excessive, spanning some seven months, and the circumstances did not justify granting an extension under s. 47.4(1) of the Act.

The Commissioner cited G-341 and determined that while the Grievor’s attempts to resolve the grievance and explore settlement options were appropriate, this did not extend the time limits. The Grievor should have filed a grievance within 30 days of learning his expenses would be reduced and his overtime would be denied, in order to protect his grievance rights.