Grievance Case Summary - G-484

The Grievor served at an isolated post. He believed that the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) undervalued the Vacation Travel Assistance (VTA) rate for his isolated post. In his opinion, the rate was both too low and contrary to a provision of the TBS Directive under which it was established. Other members felt similarly. The Respondent learned of this issue. He allegedly raised it with the TBS as the TBS Liaison on behalf of the Force. He later stated that the VTA rate for the Grievor's isolated post was correct. However, he did not reply to requests for a rundown of what he had told the TBS, or for an account of the TBS's rationale for the rate at issue. The TBS released a series of new VTA rates. The disputed one remained the same.

The Grievor filed a Level I grievance. He argued that the VTA rate for his isolated post was too low. He also urged that the Respondent did not engage the TBS about his problem with it. The Level I Adjudicator denied the matter on the ground that the Grievor did not have standing. He held that the TBS properly fixed the disputed rate under statute and policy, and that it therefore did not represent a decision, act or omission made in the administration of the affairs of the Force. The Grievor submitted a Level II grievance after the deadline for so doing had expired.

The ERC found that the Grievor should be given a statutory extension so that his grievance could be heard at Level II. It reasoned that the concerns he raised were of broad importance to the Force, given that they were prevalent at multiple isolated posts, and had led to several related grievances. It then found that although the Grievor had a compelling case for showing that the disputed VTA rate was too low, the Level I Adjudicator was right in that the Act barred the Grievor from contesting it via the Force's grievance process. This was so because, by law, only the TBS could create or amend the rate. However, the ERC noted that the Grievor could grieve the Respondent's alleged failure to address concerns about the VTA rate with the TBS. The record revealed that this was part of the Respondent's duties.

The ERC assessed the merits, given both the passage of time and the fact that the parties had been heard on all the issues. It found that the Grievor had not established that the Respondent omitted to address the purportedly faulty VTA rate with the TBS. It pointed to correspondence in the record which indicated that the Respondent did engage the TBS about that issue. It also observed that the TBS's failure to change the disputed VTA rate did not, in and of itself, show that the Respondent had neglected to bring the Grievor's concerns to the TBS. Lastly, the ERC commented that the Respondent should have handled this matter more openly and accessibly, as per the stated aims of the TB Directive, and the recommendations of a federally-appointed task force.

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

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

In a decision dated November 6, 2012, Deputy Commissioner Steve Graham, Acting Commissioner, denied the grievance for lack of timeliness of the grievance presentation at Level II. Given the passage of time in this matter, and the fact that the ERC made findings and recommendations on the issues of standing and the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner believed that it was only fair that he also comment on those issues.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the grievance was untimely at Level II. The ERC found that the issue was of general importance to the Force as a whole and recommended that a retroactive extension be granted. The Commissioner concluded that an extension of the time limit to present the grievance at Level II was not justified.

The Commissioner commented on the issue of standing. As outlined by the ERC, it appears that the Grievor grieved two issues in this matter: 1) the VTA rates which are fixed by the TBS, and 2) the alleged failure of the Respondent to address the purportedly faulty VTA rates with the TBS. With respect to the VTA rates set by the TBS, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that they are not a decision, act or omission made in the administration of the affairs of the Force. As such, the Grievor did not have standing to grieve the VTA rates fixed by the TBS. With respect to the second issue, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the alleged failure on the Respondent's part to address the VTA rates with the TBS was a decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Force. Thus, the Grievor had standing to present his grievance with respect to this narrow issue only.

With respect to the merits of the grievance, namely whether or not the Respondent addressed the purportedly faulty VTA rates with the TBS, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the record contains correspondence which strongly suggests that the Grievor's concerns with the disputed VTA rates were forwarded to the TBS by National Compensation Services.

In conclusion, the Commissioner stated that had he not denied the grievance for lack of timeliness of the grievance presentation, he would have denied it for lack of merit. He would have agreed with the ERC that the Grievor failed to discharge his burden of proof in showing that, on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent failed to address the purportedly faulty VTA rates with the TBS.