Grievance Case Summary - G-476

The Grievor learned that he was being transferred from an overseas city to a Canadian city. He requested a non-accountable advance (NAA) to pay for his return to Canada, in accordance with the Foreign Service Directives (FSD). He informed the Respondent that he preferred to travel from the overseas city to the Canadian city where he formerly served, and then on to the Canadian city to which he was moving. He did not clearly explain why he wished to travel that way. The Respondent told the Grievor that the FSD required her to prepare the NAA by calculating the travel costs from the overseas city directly to the Canadian city to which he was relocating. However, she also indicated that because the advance was non-accountable, the Grievor could use it to travel how he wished. She further instructed him to communicate directly with another branch about the possibility of shaping his NAA to include a stop in his prior Canadian location.

The Grievor accepted the amount in the NAA that the Respondent sent him. He flew directly to the Canadian city he had been transferred to. He later took a separate, three-day trip to the Canadian city where he formerly served. He asked the Force to pay him his travel costs for that trip, in addition to the NAA that he already received. The Respondent refused.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, endorsing the Respondent's reading of the FSD. He added that, under the FSD, the NAA could have been crafted the way the Grievor wanted if the Grievor was transferred from one overseas city to another overseas city, but that is not what happened. The Grievor grieved at Level II. Both parties filed submissions. The Grievor was not given a chance to review, or rebut, the Respondent's submission, contrary to RCMP policy.

The ERC found that even though the above-noted policy breach amounted to procedural unfairness, the Grievor was not unduly prejudiced. This was so because he fully participated in the other steps of the process, his position on the merits was made clear, and the Respondent's Level II submission raised matters of little importance to the grievance. Given the circumstances, the ERC recommends to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he address the merits rather than return the matter to Level I to correct the procedural error.

The ERC agreed with the Level I Adjudicator's decision. Yet it also found that the decision was not a complete answer. It observed that a section of the FSD gave the Force the discretion to approve a stopover if it was "reasonable and necessary". However, it also pointed out that the Grievor never discussed his preferred method of transport with the other branch, contrary to the Respondent's instruction, nor did he clarify why his desired stopover was "reasonable and necessary". The ERC further found that the Grievor accepted the NAA, as the Respondent had drafted it, and that he chose to fly the way that he did after being informed of his travel options.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance.

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

In a decision dated May 16, 2012, the Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the ERC.