Grievance Case Summary - G-597

While on travel leave from his isolated post, the Grievor fell ill and his status was changed to “off-duty sick”. At that time, the Grievor's dependants were accompanying him. Instead of returning to his isolated post after his vacation leave, the Grievor and his dependants stayed in an urban centre in order for him to receive medical treatment. As the Grievor was being transferred from his isolated post, he and his dependants returned to their RCMP-owned residence at his original post to vacate his household goods and effects (HHE). His HHE were stored pending a new posting for the Grievor. The Grievor and his dependants returned to the same urban centre to continue with the Grievor's medical treatment.

A few weeks after his arrival at the urban centre, the Grievor was sent on a course in Depot in order to secure a posting to that division. However, the Grievor did not obtain a posting to Depot after the completion of his course. The Grievor then drove his family to another division to reside with a family member as, he explained, he was financially strained because his travel claims had not been fully reimbursed. After being on travel status for five months, the Force was able to secure a posting for the Grievor.

The Grievor sent travel claims to the Respondent to have his travel expenditures reimbursed. The Respondent audited the travel claims and removed the Grievor's dependants' travel expenditures on the basis that the Grievor did not require a medical escort during his treatment as per the Isolated Post and Government Housing Directive. The Respondent also removed expenses related to the purchase of clothing for the Grievor and his dependants, damage to a hotel bathroom door and interest on the Grievor's credit card.

The Grievor challenged the Respondent's decision to remove these expenses from his travel claims. The Grievor argued that he was entitled to his dependants' travel expenditures as suitable arrangements could not be made for them at the isolated post. A Level I Adjudicator partially upheld the grievance.

The ERC found that the Grievor was not entitled to reimbursement for travelling expenses incurred by or on behalf of his dependants while they had the option of returning to their residence at the isolated post. However, the Grievor was entitled to their travel expenses after the family had vacated their residence as no suitable arrangements could be made for them.

The ERC agreed with the Grievor that his situation was an exceptional one as described in the Force’s travel policy. It found that the Grievor was entitled to reimbursement for clothing purchases made by him for his family, however, only those purchases supported by receipt could be reimbursed. The damage to the hotel bathroom door could not be reimbursed as the Grievor did not demonstrate that it was a necessary action. Lastly, the ERC found that the Grievor was not entitled to reimbursement or payment of any amount in respect of interest.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP partially uphold the grievance.

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

The Grievor presented a grievance against the Respondent after learning that he was not going to receive payment for the expenses he claimed for his dependants. The Respondent claimed that the Grievor did not require a medical escort in connection with treatment the Grievor received while away from his isolated post. Level I partially upheld the grievance. The Commissioner found that although the Grievor did not require a medical escort, his dependants did not have suitable arrangements that would allow them not to accompany the Grievor. The Commissioner accepted the ERC recommendation and partially upheld the grievance.