Grievance Case Summary - G-495

In 2006, the Grievor joined an isolated post. He did so partly because the members there could receive Vacation Travel Assistance (VTA) twice per fiscal year. In 2007, the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) revised its Isolated Posts Directive (Directive). As a result of some revisions, the VTA benefit at the Grievor's post was reduced from two payments to one payment per fiscal year. The TBS advised the Force of changes to the Directive. The Force then circulated three written messages which the Grievor received. They said the Directive had changed. They also linked to information about the revisions, listed contacts to whom questions could be asked, and noted that the "Environmental Allowance" at the Grievor's post would drop on January 1, 2008.

At some point after January 1, 2008, the Grievor submitted an expense claim seeking VTA for a vacation he took during the 2007-08 fiscal year. The Respondent rejected the Grievor's claim in late January 2008. She observed that the Grievor had already been given VTA for a prior holiday taken that fiscal year. She explained that he could no longer receive VTA benefits twice per fiscal year, in light of the communicated modifications the TBS had made to the Directive. The Grievor filed a grievance. He felt the Force's written communications were too vague, and that an "individual notification of a loss of entitlements for specific detachments" was in order. He also disagreed with the changes to the Directive which reduced the VTA benefits at his post.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. In his opinion, the Force provided sufficient notice of changes to the Directive. He held that the Grievor was not entitled to an individualized communication explaining how those amendments would affect him personally. He explained that it was up to the Grievor to inform himself of communicated updates to relevant authorities. He further pointed out that the Directive clarified that isolated post benefits could be modified.

The ERC found that the Grievor had standing to grieve the Force's purported failure to properly inform him of a key change to the Directive. It reasoned that this argument involved an alleged omission by the Force which potentially deprived the Grievor of information to which he was entitled, and which he needed to make crucial financial decisions. However, it found that the Grievor did not have standing to grieve the actual alterations to the Directive. It explained that the Directive was a TBS policy under which only the TBS could set and alter VTA entitlements. The ERC then found that the Force provided the Grievor with sufficient notice of the revisions to the Directive which affected him, as per the relevant provision of that authority. It stressed that members have a responsibility to familiarize themselves with applicable policies. It observed that both the former and updated versions of the Directive clearly indicated that the a post's VTA entitlement was linked to that post's environment allowance classification. It also reasoned that the Grievor could have directed any questions he might have had about issues relating to the updated Directive to the contacts whom the Force had identified for that purpose.

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:

As recommended by the ERC, the Commissioner denied the grievance.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC in finding that the grievance was timely and that the Grievor had standing, in part. The grievance was made up of two issues. The Grievor had standing on his question of whether the Force adequately informed him of a material change to the Treasury Board Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive (“Directive”) at issue, in particular, the reduction of the vacation travel assistance entitlements which were available at his isolated post. He did not have standing with respect to his concerns with the changes to the Directive themselves. The decision to amend the provisions of the Directive is made by the Treasury Board Secretariat alone. The RCMP plays no role in making such changes and, as such, the Grievor's concerns in that regard are not a proper subject-matter for the grievance process.

On the collateral issue of the identity of a respondent, while it was unclear, in this matter, whether the named responding party was actually the one to make the decision at issue, there was no objection to her involvement, the Grievor and the Office for the Coordination of Grievances were properly notified of the Respondent's identity, and the record showed complete submissions. The Commissioner found that a suitable respondent was named.

On the merits, the Commissioner followed the Level I Adjudicator and ERC's recommendation in concluding that the Force complied with the notification requirements set out in the Directive, providing the Grievor with sufficient notice of the amendments to the Directive. The record showed that, in accordance with notice requirements under the Directive, the email communications regarding the revisions at issue were provided within a timely manner and contained sufficiently detailed information. It was not necessary for the Force to pin down every member's particular circumstances and provide individual notices on how the amendments would affect that member.

Citing prior grievance decisions emphasizing the importance of members familiarizing themselves with applicable policies, the Commissioner added that it was the Grievor's responsibility to seek out clarification if he was uncertain about terminology or other changes being communicated to him.