Grievance Case Summary - G-473

The Grievor worked at an isolated post. He received an advance for upcoming family vacation travel. When he returned from his trip, he submitted an expense claim. It indicated that the Force still owed him some money. The Respondent did not process the claim. She explained that the Grievor failed to seek expenses in a way that complied with the 2003 Treasury Board Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive (IPGHD 2003), which was in effect at the time.

The Grievor grieved the Respondent's refusal to process his claim, plus a lack of notice about calculation changes under the IPGHD 2003. Yet he conceded that the Respondent correctly applied that directive to his claim. He later urged that his grievance was really about the Force's failure to deliver orientation sessions at his isolated post clarifying the IPGHD 2003, and that someone else should be the respondent. He also argued that he should receive his outstanding expenses in accordance with a Bulletin, and fairness. At Level I, the Respondent was held to be the correct responding party, and the training argument was viewed as an expansion of the case. The grievance was denied.

The ERC found that the grievance form alluded to the extent of the Grievor's entitlement to isolated post vacation travel expenses, and the duty to provide related orientation sessions. It also found that the Respondent was the proper responding party, as she made the decision in dispute. It further found that the RCMP did not appear to deliver required orientation sessions at the Grievor's isolated post clarifying the IPGHD 2003. It also found that the Bulletin did not support a payment of monies under the IPGHD 2003. Rather, the Bulletin supported payments under that directive's predecessor. The ERC disagreed that the Force should reimburse the Grievor's full claim, and possibly ignore policy in so doing. It noted that members must be familiar with directives in place, and found that the Grievor knew that the IPGHD 2003 was in effect before his trip. It also observed that, unlike in prior cases, there were no authorities which applied to the Grievor's situation and which suggested that full payment was appropriate. It concluded that the claim had to be processed in accordance with the IPGHD 2003.

The ERC recommends that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance in part. The Grievor's claim must be processed according to the IPGHD 2003. However, the ERC agrees that the Force did not meet its obligations to provide orientation sessions about the new policy. In that regard, the ERC also recommends 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. The ERC further recommends that the Commissioner order that a specialist help the Grievor resubmit his claim in compliance with the IPGHD 2003.

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 denied the grievance.

The Commissioner found that the Respondent was the proper responding party, since she had issued the decision and interpretation of the Directive grieved by the Grievor.

With respect to the Grievor’s disclosure request, the Commissioner agreed with the Level I Adjudicator’s decision not to order the disclosure of the documents sought by the Grievor. The documents either did not exist or were not relevant or reasonably required to properly present the grievance.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC Chair that the IPGHD indicated that the Force was to hold orientation sessions for the purpose of clarifying the allowances and benefits available under that directive. Further, it appeared that no such orientation session was provided to the Grievor. However, the Commissioner disagreed with the ERC’s recommendation that the grievance be allowed in part on that basis. He found that the lack of an orientation session was not enough to allow the grievance, even in part, since the Grievor knew that his claim would be processed in accordance with the IPGHD and should have sought advice on the directive’s interpretation if he was unclear about its provisions. There was an onus on the Grievor to familiarize himself with the content of the directive and to inform himself better if he was in doubt about a certain issue.

The Commissioner found that the Grievor had failed to establish that the Respondent erred in her interpretation of the IPGHD or that she erred in refusing to process the Grievor’s travel expense claim as submitted. He noted that the Respondent had advised the Grievor to resubmit a new expense claim that would meet the requirements of the IPGHD, and that his decision to deny the grievance did not preclude the Grievor from doing so now. In accordance with the ERC’s suggestion, the Grievor could obtain the assistance of a specialist to amend or complete the expense claim form.