Grievance Case Summary - G-496

The Grievor was on travel status performing relief duties in a northern community. During his stay, he resided in a Crown-owned house which was vacant. The Grievor claimed a Private Accommodation Allowance (PAA). The Treasury Board Travel Directive (TBTD) allowed a PAA for each day that travellers on government business stayed in "private, non-commercial accommodation".

The Respondent denied the Grievor's claim, as in his view the house met the TBTD definition of "government and institutional accommodation", for which no PAA was allowed. The Respondent also took the view that even if the accommodation was considered "private, non-commercial accommodation", it was subject to a divisional policy which precluded payment of the PAA. Specifically, this divisional policy denied payment of a PAA when the Crown-owned residence was designated as shared accommodation.

The Grievor grieved the Respondent's decision to deny his PAA claim. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. In his view, the Crown-owned house, which at all relevant times was vacant pending the arrival of a new tenant, could only be considered as being "government and institutional accommodation".

The Crown-owned house came under the category of "private non-commercial accommodation", whether Crown-owned or not. It was a private dwelling, and not a government facility or police barracks. There is an institutional/non residential component to the category "government and institutional accommodation" that removes from its scope anything akin to a private place of residence even though it may be government owned.

Further, the fact that the residence may have been designated as shared accommodation did not negate entitlement to a PAA for a member on travel status. Such a categorization is used to determine how much rent a member will pay if they are moving permanently into a Crown-owned house, and whether or not they will have to share the house with other members. For a member on travel status, its private non-commercial nature is not altered by how the Force will make it available to members moving permanently into it.

The ERC found that the Grievor was entitled to the PAA. However, the Grievor was not entitled to interest on that amount, as his request for interest was only made at Level II. Furthermore, he provided no arguments justifying such a request.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance, but that he not consider the Grievor's request for interest.

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

In a decision dated December 16, 2011, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC and allowed the grievance. The Commissioner determined that the Grievor stayed in “private non-commercial accommodation” during the period of his relief duties, and ordered that he be paid the PAA for that period forthwith. The Commissioner denied the Grievor’s request for interest.