Grievance Case Summary - G-497

The Grievor was on relief duty at an isolated post in the North for a period of 3 weeks. During this time, he stayed in a Crown-owned self-contained detached house that was rented and occupied by a member who was absent on leave during the Grievor's period of relief duty.

The Grievor submitted his expense claim for meals and incidentals. He did not claim the Private Accommodation Allowance (PAA) as the Respondent had informed him that he was not entitled to the PAA. This travel claim was approved by the Respondent. Then, while the Respondent was on leave, the Grievor submitted a second travel claim covering only the PAA. This claim was approved by the acting OIC of the detachment. Upon her return, the Respondent learned of the second claim and requested that the Grievor reimburse the monies received as PAA.

The Grievor argues that he was not informed prior to his relief duties of the division's interpretation of the travel policy that he would not be entitled to claim the PAA. Further, he contends that the Respondent never offered her house, but drove him directly to the other member's residence. According to the Respondent, it was policy that whether or not a member could claim the PAA depended on how the Crown-owned self-contained detached houses were categorized for the purpose of members renting them on a permanent basis. As her house was categorized as shared self-contained accommodation, the Grievor was not entitled to receive the PAA.

The ERC found that the Grievor submitted his grievance one day outside the statutory time limit. However, as it was only one day and the Respondent did not suffer any prejudice, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP use his authority under s.47.4 of the RCMP Act.

There is an institutional/non residential component to the category "government and institutional accommodation" found in the travel directive that removes from its scope anything akin to a private place of residence even though it may be government-owned. The ERC found that the Grievor stayed with Force approval in a Crown-owned self-contained detached house. Therefore, as this accommodation fell under the category of "private non-commercial accommodation", the Grievor was entitled to the PAA for the duration of his relief duties.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP use his authority under s.47.4 of the RCMP Act to retroactively extend the statutory time limit. The ERC also recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance and order that the request for repayment be cancelled.

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

In a decision dated December 5, 2011, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC and allowed the grievance.

With respect to the subject of the grievance, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Respondent’s demand for repayment after the Grievor’s claim for the PAA had been approved by the acting NCO i/c, was not the same as the Respondent’s original communication to the Grievor that he could not claim the PAA. However, the Commissioner pointed out that had the acting NCO i/c not approved the claim, the grievance would have been untimely unless it had been presented within thirty days of the original statement by the Respondent.

There was also an issue regarding whether the Grievor presented his grievance 31 days after the Respondent’s demand for repayment (as had been written on the grievance presentation form) or within 29 days (as the Grievor informed the OCG). The Commissioner found that there was no proof that the Grievor missed the limitation period, but if he had it was by only one day and did not prejudice the Respondent. As the matter was important to many members, the Commissioner would have used his authority to grant an extension, as fairness would dictate that the grievance be considered on the merits and not denied solely for the reason of a missed day.

With respect to the Respondent’s argument that a member was entitled to a PAA while staying in “self-contained accommodation” but was not entitled to the allowance when staying in “shared accommodation” (or if “shared accommodation” was available to the member), the Commissioner stated that these were categories set out in the Treasury Board Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive and did not have any bearing on the definitions of “private non-commercial accommodation” or “government and institutional accommodation” under the Treasury Board Travel Directive.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC and found that a house, which is used as a private place of residence by members posted permanently in the community, is private non-commercial accommodation, and does not fit the definition of “government and institutional accommodation” as that term is defined in the TBTD.

The Commissioner stated that pursuant to subsection 22(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and s. 74 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, the TBTD prevails over the RCMP Travel Directive or local RCMP policy. The record contained no evidence of any exception.

As the Grievor stayed in “private non-commercial accommodation” during the period of his relief duties, the Commissioner ordered that the demand for repayment be cancelled.