Grievance Case Summary - G-593

Between December 12, 2005, and June 5, 2008, the Grievor regularly worked evening shifts outside of his headquarters area. While on travel status, the Grievor requested and obtained a reimbursement for his mid-shift meals at the lunch rate. However, in light of new information, he asked that the meals for which he was already reimbursed at the lunch rate be reimbursed at the dinner rate. Therefore, he claimed the difference between the amount received and the amount he should have received for 187 meals. The Respondent denied the 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 Treasury Board Travel Directive (TBTD). The Respondent indicated that, if the Grievor paid more for his meals, he had to submit supporting documentation. The Grievor replied that the TBTD stipulated that he did not have to submit supporting documents to be reimbursed for his meals. He also asked that the amounts awarded to him be subject to punitive damages.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance 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. Since the Grievor had already received the amount to which he was entitled, the Adjudicator denied the grievance.

The ERC found that the TBTD clearly indicated that shift workers must 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. Therefore, the Grievor was entitled to be reimbursed for his meals at the lunch rate.

However, the ERC concluded that, when the Grievor claimed two meals eaten during the same shift exceeding 10 hours, he was entitled to be reimbursed for the second meal at the dinner rate based on the meal sequence established by the TBTD.

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 partially uphold the grievance.

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

[TRANSLATION]

In keeping with the ERC’s recommendations, the Commissioner allowed the grievance in part, because the Grievor, who was contesting a number of refusals to reimburse him for meals at the dinner rate, is partially eligible. Thus, for shifts of over 10 hours where the Grievor claims two meals, he is entitled to have his second meal reimbursed at the dinner rate.