Grievance Case Summary - G-637

In May 2009, the Grievor joined a unit that performed relief work at isolated posts. While carrying out the relief work, the Grievor stayed in Crown-owned homes of local members and made claims for private non-commercial accommodation allowance (PNAA) benefits. The Grievor alleged that, in August 2009, the Force began denying PNAA claims of members who stayed in non-commercial accommodations while performing relief work at isolated posts. On March 28, 2014, the Force issued an RCMP Communication (Communication) entitled “Payment of the Private Non-commercial Accommodation Allowance”. The Communication stated that, because the PNAA had been inconsistently paid, the Respondent was directing that, “retroactive to 2011-12-16, a member on relief duties in isolated locations who, while on travel status, resides in Crown-owned housing that is rented by another member will be eligible for the PNAA at the prescribed rate”.

The Grievor filed a grievance identifying the decision being grieved as the Respondent's decision in the Communication to establish December 16, 2011 as the date for retroactive eligibility to receive PNAA benefits. In support of his case, the Grievor cited the National Joint Council Travel Directive (NJCTD). A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on its merits, finding that the Grievor omitted to offer any evidence that the Respondent applied any policy or legislation inconsistently in establishing the December 16, 2011 date. The Level I Adjudicator noted that the Respondent's authority to establish a retroactive eligibility date for the receipt of a PNAA benefit was found in the RCMP Act. The Level I Adjudicator also found no evidence that the Respondent acted in bad faith. The Grievor resubmitted his grievance at Level II.

The ERC observed that five types of grievances are referable to the ERC, in accordance with subsections 36(a) to (e) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988. It found that the present grievance did not fall within the scope of subsections 36(b), (c), (d), or (e), as those subsections all deal with subjects which were not at issue.

The other type of referable grievance, described in subsection 36(a) of the 1988 Regulations, involves matters relating to “the Force's interpretation and application of government policies that apply to government departments and that have been made to apply to members”. The ERC found that the present grievance fell outside the ambit of subsection 36(a) as its subject-matter related to a decision by the Respondent, pursuant to his rule making authority set forth in subsections 5(1) and 21(2) of the RCMP Act, to establish December 16, 2011 as the eligibility date for retroactive PNAA benefits. In so doing, the Respondent did not interpret or apply the NJCTD. The grievance did not dispute a decision made pursuant to the Communication. Rather, the Grievor disputed the content of the Communication itself (the eligibility date).

This grievance is not referable to the ERC. As a result, the ERC does not have the legal authority to further review the matter or to make any findings or recommendations.

The ERC returned the file to the RCMP to be addressed by the responsible office(s) within the Force.