Grievance Case Summary - G-472

The Grievor submitted a travel authorization form the day before he was to depart. It indicated that he would be driving his own car to another city, both for work and personal reasons. He noted that, upon his return, he would be seeking a reimbursement for his round trip mileage. The next day, the Respondent told the Grievor, by email, that he preferred that the Grievor fly. He also said that the Force would reimburse only the portion of the impending mileage expense which was "necessarily driven on government business". Although the Grievor did not reply to the Respondent, he believed that the Respondent's email was only a proposal, not a decision. The Respondent never signed the travel authorization form. On the same day that he received the Respondent's reply, the Grievor drove his car to the other city. He drove back a week later.

The Grievor filed an expense claim upon his return. He sought a round trip mileage payment of $639.60, but pointed out that he did not actually have to do any work-related driving while in the other city. The Respondent decided to permit a payment of $128.70 for the estimated round trip cost of the Grievor's fuel. He explained that it amounted to the sum that the Grievor would have received if he used an available police car, which was the overall most economical and operationally expedient means of business travel. The Grievor received a $128.70 payment. The Respondent also allowed a payment for the full per diem for the day of the Grievor's return.

The Grievor brought a grievance. He contested the Respondent's refusal of his mileage claim. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He held that the Force acted in a way that was consistent with applicable policies. He observed that the Grievor drove his own car to and from the other city without permission. He reasoned that Force policy placed RCMP interests ahead of a member's when deciding a method of transport. He ultimately held that the Force treated the Grievor fairly by refusing his mileage claim, but paying him a sum for his gas costs.

The ERC found that the Grievor could have started the travel authorization process sooner than one day before he departed. It noted that he took his trip in his own car, even though he knew that he did not have permission to do so, and that pre-authorization was required by policy. It also found that the Grievor failed to refer any uncertainty he had about his entitlements to Corporate Management/Finance for guidance prior to leaving, as required by a RCMP travel directive. The ERC found that the Respondent acted fairly and in accordance with authority. His response to the Grievor's failure to obtain pre-authorization was not to force him to pay for business travel out of his own pocket. It was to reimburse him, not for actual expenses, but on a calculation of expenses as if he had used the most practical means of travel available.

The ERC recommends to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he deny the grievance.

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

In a decision dated February 28, 2012, Commissioner Robert W. Paulson agreed with the ERC’s findings and recommendations and denied the grievance.

The Commissioner concluded that travel by personal vehicle in this case was not in the employer’s interest, nor was it done within the prescribed rules. The Respondent made it clear from the start that it was his preference that the Grievor fly to the other city, to keep his business and personal travel separate and because driving meant that the Grievor’s travel time would be longer, resulting in more time away from the office and additional meal and incidental expenses. If the Grievor did not wish to fly, then the Respondent felt that he should use a police vehicle instead of his own. However, the Grievor was not prepared to pay for a flight for his wife, who was accompanying him; taking his own vehicle was more practical and convenient for him. Although it may have been in the Grievor’s interest to combine his, and his wife’s, vacation travel with business travel, it did not coincide with the employer’s interest in this case. In accordance with AM.VI.1 and the TB Directive, when it comes to business travel, the deciding factor is the employer’s interest.