Grievance Case Summary - G-663

The Appellant transferred to an isolated post where he lived with his wife, who became pregnant a year or so later. Her pregnancy was deemed "high risk", and her local doctor prepared a letter stating that, for medical reasons, she was to obtain related care at a distant location. During the following months, the couple travelled to and from that location, to attend medical appointments. The Appellant admittedly did not review relevant authorities, including the National Joint Council Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive, to learn his obligations regarding the medical travel, for which pre-approval was not obtained. In his view, his wife's high risk pregnancy itself met the requirements for medical travel and he was acting reasonably, based on what he gleaned from a co-worker and from a call with the Employee and Management Relations Office (EMRO).

Later during the pregnancy, in the first documented correspondence between the Appellant and the EMRO, an EMRO official stressed the importance of obtaining pre-approval for medical travel via a Form 2996, outlined the process for obtaining pre-approval, and provided an authority requiring pre-approval. Weeks later, the couple made a final trip to the location, without obtaining pre-approval to travel. Months after the birth of their child, the Grievor submitted a completed Form 2996 along with his isolated post medical travel expense claim. The claim was denied on the ground that "approval was not in place at the time travel commenced". The Grievor challenged the decision by way of a Level I grievance that was denied on the merits. The Grievor resubmitted the case at Level II, where he for the first time filed and relied on documents he had written or received years earlier.

The ERC found that the evidence filed by the Grievor for the first time at Level II was not admissible, but that the general points he wished to make with it would be dealt with, as those points had already been made at Level I.

The ERC found the Grievor failed to follow or familiarize himself with applicable authorities that were available to the public, accessible to him as an RCMP member and/or provided directly to him by the EMRO at one point. The key authorities required that isolated post medical travel be pre-approved in writing. It is a long-standing position of the ERC and the Commissioner that RCMP members are expected to be familiar with the authorities that apply in their situations and ensure that any claims are made in compliance with those authorities. The ERC addressed the Grievor's principal positions and acknowledged that he conducted his business respectfully and in good faith, under what must have been stressful circumstances. Yet this did not alter the fact that the refusal of his claim was attributable to his omission to familiarize himself with and follow relevant authorities. This was an honest mistake, but RCMP travel policy stated that expenses resulting from mistakes were not a basis for reimbursement. The Grievor offered arguments for allowing the grievance despite his omission, but these were unsupported by evidence and/or the record.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by her office, is as follows:

The Grievor challenged the Respondent's decision to deny his request for isolated post medical travel expenses incurred as a result of his wife's pregnancy. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. The Commissioner accepts the ERC finding that the Respondent failed to familiarize himself with policy and obtain pre-approval prior to incurring the expenses, even after being told to do so. The Grievance is denied.