Grievance Case Summary - G-569

The Grievor filed an expense claim for a meal eaten in April 2006 pursuant to the Treasury Board Travel Directive. The Respondent denied the claim because the Grievor could not explain why she was 60 km away from her workplace. The Respondent asked her to provide supporting documentation, which she refused to do.

The Grievor filed the same claim for the second time in July 2007, more than a year after the initial denial. The Respondent maintained his denial. In a memo dated February 29, 2008, the respondent indicated that, as in their previous conversation, he could not approve the expense. The Grievor grieved the decision.

The Respondent raised the preliminary issue of time limitation, arguing that he had denied the claim in April 2006. The Grievor was of the opinion that the memo dated February 29, 2008 constituted a new decision. The Level I Adjudicator deemed that filing a [TRANSLATION] “final claim” did not entitle the Grievor to Part III (grievances) of the RCMP Act.

The ERC found that the denial of February 29, 2008 did not constitute a new decision, as the Grievor had not submitted any new information to the Respondent that would have enabled him to review his decision.

The ERC also concluded that no recommendation should be made to the Commissioner to extend the time limit pursuant to his authority under section 47.4(1) of the Act, as the Grievor had not met the criteria established for justifying such an extension.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance.

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

[TRANSLATION]

The Commissioner denied the grievance because the Grievor, who was contesting the refusal to reimburse him for a meal, did not file his grievance within the time limit prescribed by the Act.