Grievance Case Summary - G-498

The Grievor was on relief duty at an isolated post in the North for almost 3 weeks. During this time, he stayed in two residences. The first was a Crown-owned self-contained detached house that was rented and occupied by a member who was absent on leave. The second residence was the Respondent's residence who paid partial rent.

While the Respondent was on leave, the Grievor submitted his travel claim in which he requested, among other things, the Private Accommodation Allowance (PAA). The claim was approved by the acting Officer in Charge of the detachment. Upon her return, the Respondent learned of the claim and sent an email to the Grievor informing him that he would have to reimburse the PAA received for both residences.

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. Had he been informed, it would have affected his decision. 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 Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance in part. He found that, since the absent member was paying full rent, his residence could be categorized as a private dwelling. Therefore, the Grievor was entitled to the PAA for the days which he resided in the member's residence. However, the Respondent's residence was considered shared self-contained and as such, the Grievor was not entitled to the PAA for this portion of his relief duties.

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 both accommodations 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 allow the grievance and order that the request for repayment be cancelled. Moreover, as the ERC has lately received several grievances regarding this issue, it recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP order that host detachments ensure that clear and consistent instructions be prepared and given to relieving members before their departure for the isolated post.

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.

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. The Commissioner also agreed with the ERC’s further recommendation and ordered that host detachments ensure that clear and consistent instructions be prepared and given to relieving members before their departure for an isolated post.