Grievance Case Summary - G-572-592

The Grievor regularly worked evening shifts outside of his headquarters area. Based on the Treasury Board Travel Directive (TBTD), he asked that his mid-shift meals while on travel status be reimbursed at the dinner rate. The Respondents denied his claim on the grounds that the Grievor was entitled to be reimbursed for his meals at the lunch rate under section 3.2.9 of the TBTD. The Respondents indicated that, if the Grievor paid more for his meals, he had to provide supporting documentation. The Grievor filed 21 grievances requesting that he be reimbursed for his meals at the dinner rate and not at the lunch rate. He claimed that the TBTD stipulates that he did not have to submit supporting documentation to be reimbursed for his meals. In total, the Grievor requested to be reimbursed for 51 meals at the dinner rate. He also requested that the amounts awarded to him be subject to punitive damages.

The Level I Adjudicator denied all the grievances because, under section 3.2.9 of the TBTD, the Grievor could be reimbursed for mid-shift meals, but based on the sequence of breakfast, lunch and dinner. According to the Level I Adjudicator, the Grievor’s mid-shift meals eaten during his evening shifts were therefore equivalent to a lunch.

The ERC found that the TBTD clearly indicated that shift workers should be reimbursed based on the meal sequence of breakfast, lunch and dinner, regardless of the shift’s commencement. The ERC concluded that section 3.2.9 of the TBTD provided that the meal sequence comprising, respectively, breakfast, lunch and dinner should apply to shift workers’ shifts, regardless of the shift in question.

Regarding punitive damages, the ERC concluded that, unless expressly authorized by legislation, a contract or a court order, the RCMP could not award damages.

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

The Commissioner has rendered his decision in these matters, as summarized by his office:

[TRANSLATION]

The Commissioner denied the 21 grievances because the Grievor, who was contesting a number of refusals to reimburse him for meals at the dinner rate, was not eligible.