Grievance Case Summary - G-550

The Grievor was transferred from X to Y. He elected not to sell his principal residence. The Grievor's family continued to reside in the family home, and the Grievor lived and worked in Y. The Grievor was required to attend a supervisor's training course in X on days he would normally have been working day shifts in Y. The Grievor was required to stay overnight and he opted to stay at his family's residence.

The Grievor submitted a travel expense claim. The Respondent denied the claim, except for two lunches, on the basis that the Grievor "maintains" a residence in X where the course was held.

The Grievor grieved the denial of his travel expense claim. After early resolution discussions, the Respondent approved the Grievor's claim for private vehicle mileage. A Level I Adjudicator partially upheld the grievance on its merits. He found that, since the Grievor was more than 16 km from his workplace on government business overnight, he was on "travel status" per the Treasury Board Travel Directive (TBTD). He was therefore entitled to all meal allowances and incidental allowances, less the allowances he had already received. The Level I Adjudicator further found that the Grievor was not entitled to the private non-commercial accommodation allowance (PAA). He noted that the TBTD defined "private non-commercial accommodation" as a "private dwelling or non-commercial facilities where the traveller does not normally reside". He concluded that the Grievor normally resided in both X and Y, hence he was not entitled to the PAA for a training session held at X.

The grievance is referable to the ERC and the Grievor meets the statutory requirements for standing and time limits at Level I.

The ERC found that the Grievor was entitled to the PAA. The parties agreed that on working days, the Grievor normally resided in Y. The course was held on two of the Grievor's working days, and the course was part of his work assignment. Therefore, his family's residence in X was a "private dwelling ... where the traveller does not normally reside". RCMP employees are not obliged to disclose where they reside when claiming the PAA. Also, whether the Grievor incurred accommodation expenses when he stayed in his family's residence is an irrelevant consideration as no travellers claiming the PAA are required to prove that they incurred actual expenses.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance and order that the Grievor's PAA claim be approved and paid. The ERC further recommended that the Commissioner order a review of the PAA provisions in both the TBTD and chapter VI.I of the RCMP Administration Manual, so that a clarification may be prepared for distribution to all those who may find themselves either making a PAA claim, or ruling on one.

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

The Commissioner allowed the grievance, as recommended by the ERC. The Grievor presented a grievance against the Force’s refusal to reimburse certain travel expenses and in particular a one night private non-commercial accommodation allowance while on travel status for mandatory training. The Commissioner concluded that the Grievor was eligible and ordered payment.