Grievance Case Summary - G-639

The Grievor lived near the National Capital Region (NCR). She suffered from a work-related condition and was off duty sick. The Grievor had received treatment for her condition for several years from an NCR-based health care professional who then relocated his practice from the NCR to Montréal. The Grievor chose to continue receiving treatment in Montréal and, consequently, incurred travel expenses. The RCMP originally paid the Grievor's travel expenses but later determined that it was not required to do so and would cease payment after a bridging period. The Force would continue payment for the health care services themselves and the Grievor could either transition to a health care professional in the NCR or remain with the Montréal-based professional and assume responsibility for her travel costs.

The Grievor filed a grievance grieving the decision of the Force to cease the payment of her travel costs to Montréal. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on its merits, finding that the Grievor had not established that the Respondent's decision was made contrary to applicable legislation, a government policy or an RCMP policy, most notably, chapter XIV.1 of the RCMP Administration Manual, “Health Care Entitlements and Benefits Programs” (AM XIV.1). The Level I Adjudicator noted that the Respondent acted in a manner consistent with AM XIV.1 and did not make any errors or omissions. The Grievor resubmitted her 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 to cease the payment of travel costs incurred to receive medical treatment. In making the decision, the Respondent did not interpret or apply the National Joint Council Travel Directive or any other government policy applicable to members as contemplated by subsection 36(a). The grievance related solely to the interpretation and application of an internal Force policy.

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.