Grievance Case Summary - G-600

The Grievor served at an isolated post with an “Environmental Allowance” (EA) classification of “3”, where he lived with a number of dependants. On behalf of himself and his dependants, the Grievor filed a claim for Vacation Travel Assistance (VTA). The Respondent received the claim on April 9, 2010. The Respondent determined that the claim was payable at a rate the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) published on April 1, 2010. The Grievor felt the claim was payable at higher rates published by the TBS in May 2009. In reply, the Respondent stated that the TBS archived the May 2009 rates on April 1, 2010, at which point they became inoperative and were replaced by the single, lower April 1, 2010 rate. The Grievor filed a Level I grievance, which was denied.

The grievance was resubmitted at Level II. Both parties referred to paragraph 3.5.7 of the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive (Directive) which provides:

The Grievor argued that the Note to paragraph 3.5.7 should be read strictly. He alleged that his claim was payable at the May 2009 rates as it was received less than 12 months after the May 2009 rates took effect. The Respondent replied that paragraph 3.5.7 should be read jointly with various guidance documents. She maintained that the Force followed the guidance documents as well as RCMP past practices by processing the Grievor's claim at the April 1, 2010 VTA rate.

The ERC found that it would be unreasonable to apply the Note strictly and that the Respondent's approach was consistent with relevant authorities and past RCMP practices.

The inclusion of the Note in the Directive was not meant to create rigid effective periods for VTA rates. Rather, the Note was meant to highlight the distinction between annual and semi-annual rates. A note is an explanatory feature, usually drafted in plain language to provide information regarding the practical application of a provision. The Note does not override the words in the body of paragraph 3.5.7, which refer only to the creation of annual and semi-annual VTA rates.

The lack of rigour in the drafting of the Note supports the interpretation that the Note was meant to be descriptive only. The two sentences in the Note are inconsistent with each other, which means applying the Note strictly could lead to annual and semi-annual VTA rates expiring on different bases. The interpretation is also supported by the Directive's guidance documents, which reveal that a VTA rate is to apply until the TBS publishes a new rate.

Nothing in the record strengthens the Grievor's position to the extent that would necessitate a consideration of whether the grievance raises equally plausible interpretations of the Directive.

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

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

The Griever presented a grievance against the decision by the Respondent, a Senior Financial Analyst at the Corporate Management Branch, "K" Division, whereby the Respondent accepted the Griever's claim for VTA, but disagreed on the rate at which the VTA benefits were payable. The Commissioner accepted the recommendations of the ERC and found that the Respondent's decision is consistent with policy. The Force does not have the authority to grant the Griever's claim at a rate other than the VTA rate published by the TBS. The grievance is denied.