Grievance Case Summary - G-480

The Grievor presented a grievance with respect to the refusal of the Respondent to allow his second claim for Vacation Travel Assistance (VTA) as made in a fiscal year. The Grievor had been posted to two different isolated posts in one fiscal year and each post had a different "environment classification" and was in a different division. Both claims were made pursuant to section 2.4.1 of the Treasury Board's Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive, 2003 (TB Directive) that is applicable to the RCMP. The Respondent took the position that the Grievor was entitled to one VTA each fiscal year even though the posts had different "environment classifications". The Grievor was of the opinion that he was entitled to two claims in one fiscal year, as he had been at two separate posts with different "environment classifications".

The ERC found that the Level I Adjudicator erred in his determination about the applicable policy for this grievance and appeared to have misunderstood the Grievor's position.

The ERC noted that the Grievor and Respondent interpreted Section 2.4.1 of the TB Directive differently resulting in the Respondent's focus being on the number of claims allowed in a fiscal year as opposed to the Grievor's focus being on the number of claims allowed for different "environment classifications". The ERC took the position that each interpretation is equally plausible.

The ERC referred to its previous recommendation found in G-463 where it commented that if "there is more than one plausible way to apply [TB Directive provisions] to the facts …I suggest that the Force choose the application that is most beneficial to the member in the isolated post". The ERC took the position that this inpretation would be consistent with the TB Directive and that this approach is "reasonable in light of the hardships, sacrifices and costs associated with serving at isolated posts" with a reference to the Brown Task Force Report dealing specifically with isolated posts.

Given that the lack of information in the grievance file or record about the dates or costs of the Grievor's trips, VTA or the Force's denial of the Greivor's second claim, the ERC found that it was not in a position to recommend a remedy and that the Commissioner of the RCMP would not be in a position to order the remedy requested by the Grievor, before a specialist's reviews of these factors.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be allowed and that the Commissioner of the RCMP order a specialist review of the Grievor's claim to determine if all other policy requirements were met. It also recommended that a clarification be sent to all members, if current policies applicable to vacation travel benefits at isolated posts contain similar provisions to that of Section 2.4.1 of the TB Directive.

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

In a decision dated July 9, 2012, Commissioner Robert W. Paulson allowed the grievance.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the relevant authority in this matter was the Treasury Board Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive, 2003. The Level I Adjudicator erred in basing his decision on the TB Directive that came into force in 2007. The Commissioner also agreed with the ERC that the crux of the matter lied in the interpretation of section 2.4.1 of the 2003 TB Directive.

The Grievor started the fiscal year at a location with an environment classification of “2”, but was transferred a few months later to a location with a classification of “3.” According to section 2.4.1 of the 2003 TB Directive, a member could make two VTA claims per fiscal year when posted to a location with an environment classification of “1" or “2". However, a member could only claim one VTA per fiscal year when posted to a location with an environment classification of “3", “4" or “5".

The Commissioner decided to allow the grievance based on the unique circumstances of this case, where the Grievor remained at an isolated post for the entire year, but was transferred to another isolated post with a different environment classification part way through the year, and where the TB Directive did not clearly forbid a second VTA.

However, the Commissioner did not agree entirely with the Grievor’s reasoning, since the latter’s policy interpretation would open up the possibility of a member making three VTA claims in a year, should a member commence the year in a location with an environment classification of “1” or “2” and enjoy two vacations with corresponding VTA, and then transfer to a location where he could receive VTA for one trip. The Commissioner found that the 2003 TB Directive clearly contemplated a maximum of two occasions per year where a member could claim VTA.

Since information was missing from the grievance record, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC’s recommendation to order that a specialist review the Grievor’s claim to determine if all policy requirements were met, and the amount of the payment to which the Grievor was entitled, if any.

The Commissioner noted that section 3.4.1 of the TB Directive in effect since 2007 appeared substantially similar to section 2.4.1 of the 2003 TB Directive, and that it could present the same issues of interpretation. However, the Commissioner did not have enough information before him to draw conclusions on the interpretation of the new policy, which could vary in other respects from the previous policy. For instance, the Commissioner noted that the numbering system for environment classifications had changed and that some of the locations had been reclassified. Therefore, the Commissioner directed that the policy centre responsible for the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive examine the Directive in light of his decision in this grievance case to determine if a clarification of the policy should be published, as recommended by the ERC.