Grievance Case Summary - G-486

The Grievor was off duty sick (ODS) when he was ordered to visit with a Health Services Officer (HSO) in another city. The day before his trip, he told his supervisor of his impending journey. However, neither authorization for travel expenditure nor transportation methods were discussed. He later filed a travel expense claim which included a mileage claim for the use of his personal vehicle. The Respondent denied the mileage claim in early February 2007 on the basis that the Grievor did not have pre-authorization to travel, and that he should have driven a police vehicle instead of his personal vehicle. Yet he offered to allow a payment of the Grievor's gas and meal costs. The Grievor later presented his claim to the HSO, who told him it needed to be sent to the Respondent. The Respondent rejected it again on February 22, 2007.

In his grievance, the Grievor argued that his travel was mandatory, that nobody told him to use a police vehicle, and that others had received mileage costs in similar cases. The Level I Adjudicator denied the matter on the ground that it was untimely. She said the Grievor knew that his claim had been rejected in early February 2007, and that the second denial of his claim on February 22 was not a new decision which could restart the time limit clock. She added that she would have denied the case on the merits. She partly reasoned that members on ODS status were not exempted from obtaining pre-approval to travel.

The ERC found that the Level I Adjudicator should have afforded the parties a chance to address the time limit issue before ruling on that subject. Yet given the passage of time, and the fact that the parties made submissions on the matter at Level II, the ERC chose to deal with the issue. It agreed that the grievance was untimely. However, it also opined that it would be appropriate to retroactively extend the time limit in this case. It felt that the Grievor's late submission was partly attributable to his genuine confusion over who could allow his claim.

The ERC then addressed the merits. It observed that the Grievor's ODS status did not exempt him from requirements of Treasury Board and RCMP policy. Although policy required advanced permission for business travel, the ERC found that post-authorization was warranted here. It explained that the Grievor had told his supervisor about the trip, and the supervisor knew the trip was mandatory. Yet the ERC found that the Respondent was justified in denying the Grievor's mileage claim, as the Grievor did not have permission to use his own vehicle. It also found that it was reasonable for the Respondent to agree to authorize a payment of the Grievor's gas and meal costs. This was so because the Grievor was ordered to take the trip, and those costs would have been paid had he taken a police vehicle.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he deny the grievance. It also recommended that he order that the Grievor be reimbursed for his gas and meal expenses. It further recommended that the Commissioner order a review to ensure that methods are in place to inform members on ODS status of the policy requirements for travel to medical appointments. This review should also ensure that methods are in place to advise RCMP personnel about the proper way to process these travel expense claims.

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

In a decision dated January 15, 2013, Acting Commissioner Steve Graham denied the grievance.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the grievance was untimely at Level I. The ERC found that the Grievor's late submission was partly attributable to his genuine confusion over who could allow his claim and recommended that a retroactive extension be granted. Furthermore, the ERC noted that the Respondent was not prejudiced by the delay caused by the Grievor not meeting the 30-day limit. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that an extension of the time limit was justified in this case, albeit for slightly different considerations. The Commissioner noted that the delay in filing the grievance was not significant, nor did it prejudice the Respondent. Furthermore, he was of the opinion that the issue involved in this case was a question of general importance which transcends the interests of the parties. In this case, the Grievor was entitled to the reimbursement of at least some expenses. But more broadly, members who are compelled by the Force to attend medical appointments are entitled to the benefits provided by the RCMP's Travel Directive (AM VI.1).

With respect to the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Grievor did not have permission to use his own vehicle. The Commissioner found that as the person seeking to receive benefits under the travel policies, the Grievor had a responsibility to ensure that he adhered to the relevant policy provisions. He had to obtain pre-authorization to use his private vehicle if he wanted to be reimbursed for his mileage. The RCMP's Travel Directive (at AM.VI.1.D.2) is clear that the manager shall authorize travel and determine the means of travel. Authorization is a prerequisite to reimbursement of expenses.

The Commissioner also opined that in the circumstances of this case, the Grievor and his supervisor shared the responsibility to ensure that policy was being followed. Once the Grievor informed his supervisor that he had a mandatory medical appointment to attend the next day, there was an onus on the supervisor to inquire about his mode of transportation.

Finally, the Commissioner found that it was reasonable for the Respondent to offer to reimburse the meals and the cost of gasoline, as opposed to a complete mileage amount, as the cost of gasoline was necessarily incurred on the Grievor's travel, and meal expenses would have been reimbursed had a police vehicle been used. Therefore, he agreed with the ERC's recommendation and directed that the Grievor be reimbursed for his gasoline and meal expenses, as per the Respondent's offer.