Grievance Case Summary - G-561

When the 2009-10 fiscal year began, the Grievor was stationed at an isolated post. He took a vacation early that fiscal year, then asked for and received a Vacation Travel Assistance (VTA) payment for the vacation. A few months later, he relocated to a different isolated post. He took a second vacation within the 2009-10 fiscal year, and sought a VTA payment for that vacation.

The Respondent refused the Grievor's request for a second VTA payment. She reasoned that the 2007 National Joint Council's Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive (2007 IPGHD) precluded the Grievor from being paid VTA twice during the 2009-10 fiscal year.

The Grievor presented a Level I grievance in which he challenged the denial of his second VTA claim. The grievance turned on the interpretation of a specific 2007 IPGHD provision that dealt with VTA payment limitations. The Respondent construed the provision narrowly, arguing that it entitled the Grievor to only one VTA payment in fiscal year 2009-10. The Grievor construed the provision broadly by making an argument based on the expressed purposes of the Directive.

A Level I Adjudicator preferred the Respondent's interpretation, and denied the grievance. The Grievor submitted a Level II grievance. He expanded on his Level I arguments, partly by urging that members who relocate from one isolated post to another isolated post deserve more VTA benefits than others, since they must continuously withstand significant geographic challenges.

The ERC based its analysis upon its findings and recommendations, and the decision of the Commissioner of the RCMP, in ERC 2900-08-001 (G-480). That case raised facts, arguments, and issues that were principally similar to those in the present matter. As in G-480, the ERC found that the disputed IPGHD provision was vague, and that the parties read it in different yet equally plausible ways. Moreover, as in G-480, the ERC found that IPGHD objectives, jurisprudence, and public policy militated toward accepting the interpretation that favoured the member at the isolated post. The ERC accordingly interpreted the disputed subsection in the Grievor's favour.

The ERC noted that multiple considerations supported its findings. For example, the Directive's stated purposes were to facilitate “the recruitment and retention of staff delivering government programs in isolated locations”, and to recognize “the inherent disadvantages and abnormally higher costs of [serving] in isolated posts”. A prominent Task Force had recommended that members who served in isolated posts be treated fairly and appropriately. Furthermore, the Commissioner of the RCMP endorsed the ERC's reasoning. He nevertheless made it clear that isolated post policy does not contemplate more than two VTA payments in a given fiscal year.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance on its merits, reversing the Respondent’s decision and allow payment of the Grievor’s second VTA claim in the 2009-10 fiscal year.

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 transferred from a two Vacation Travel Assistance (VTA) isolated location to a one VTA isolated location in the same fiscal year. He grieved when his claim for a second VTA payment was denied. The Commissioner allowed the grievance and ordered payment of the second VTA in the amount to which the Grievor was entitled.