Grievance Case Summary - G-606

The Grievor served at an isolated post with an “Environmental Allowance” (EA) classification of “3”. He submitted a claim for Vacation Travel Assistance (VTA), which the Respondent's office received on April 14, 2010. The Respondent processed and paid the Grievor's VTA claim at a rate published by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) on April 1, 2010. The Grievor felt his claim was payable at a higher rate published by the TBS in May 2009. The Respondent did not agree, stressing that the higher rate had been replaced by the rate published on April 1, 2010.

The Grievor filed a grievance which was denied at Level I and resubmitted at Level II. Both parties referred to paragraph 3.5.7 of the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive (Directive). Paragraph 3.5.7 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 fewer than 12 months after the May 2009 rates took effect. He further felt the Directive was applied inconsistently over consecutive years. The Respondent filed a Level II reply submission after the administrative deadline for so doing had expired. She restated her Level I position by alleging that paragraph 3.5.7 should be read jointly with certain guidance documents. She also repeated that the Force had followed those guidance documents, as well as RCMP past practices, by processing the Grievor's VTA claim at the April 1, 2010 VTA rate. The Grievor objected to the Respondent's late submission.

The ERC found that, although the Commissioner of the RCMP should have the flexibility to retroactively extend an administrative limitation period, no such extension was required. The Respondent's late Level II submission only reiterated her Level I position and added no substantive arguments or reasoning. As a result, the Commissioner could address the grievance without reliance on the Respondent's Level II submission.

Turning to the merits, the ERC found that it was unreasonable to apply the Note strictly and that the Respondent's position 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. For example, the 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 shall apply until the TBS publishes a new rate and that, on April 1, 2010, the prior applicable VTA rate became inoperative and a new VTA rate came into effect.

The ERC dismissed the notion that the Directive was applied inconsistently over consecutive years. The TBS published new VTA rates on different dates in fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. As a result, the Force applied the new VTA rates as of those different dates in each of the two fiscal years. The discrepancy may have led to some members receiving less VTA than they anticipated in consecutive years. However, this result was outside of the Force's control and was not a result of an inconsistent practice or interpretation 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 grieved the decision made by the Respondent, a Senior Financial Analyst with the North West Accounting Operations, "K" Division, whereby the Respondent processed the Griever's VTA claim, but disagreed on the rate at which the VTA benefits were payable. The Commissioner accepted the ERC's recommendations and determined that the Respondent did not render the decision in a manner inconsistent with the relevant authorities. The Force does not have the authority to grant the Griever's claim at a rate other than' the rate published by the TBS. The grievance is denied.