Grievance Case Summary - G-664

The Grievor claimed a Private Non-Commercial Accommodation Allowance (PAA) at a rate of $50.00 per day for the 29 days that he was on travel status. During this time he was required to stay overnight in a vacant trailer that was owned by the Force and located in the parking lot of an RCMP Detachment. His claim was denied by the Force and he filed a grievance. At Level I the Adjudicator found that the vacant, Force-owned trailer was not private accommodation and that the PAA is not intended to compensate members for inadequate accommodations. At Level II the Grievor requested that in addition to his Level I grievance, new material should be considered that he said was not available to him at the time of his Level I grievance. The new material consisted of a retroactive amendment to section 6.1.2. of the RCMP Travel Directive; email correspondence in which the Grievor applied for payment of the PAA under the retroactive amendment and was refused; and the ERC's findings and recommendations and the Commissioner's decision in G-301.

The ERC found that the grievance is referable to the ERC; that the Grievor satisfied the requirements for standing for the presentation of a grievance; that the grievance was submitted within the statutory limitation periods at Levels I and II; that the retroactive amendment to section 6.1.2. of the RCMP Travel Directive is not relevant to this grievance; that the email correspondence in which the Grievor applied for payment of the PAA under the retroactive amendment and was refused, is inadmissible at Level II; and, that the ERC's findings and recommendations and the Commissioner's decision in G-301 are admissible at Level II, but not relevant to this grievance. Regarding the merits, the ERC found that the Grievor is not entitled to the PAA as the trailer was owned by the Force; it was not being rented by another member at the time the Grievor stayed in it, so any "private" character it may have had as a result of someone living there was absent; failure to qualify as suitable police quarters/barracks does not transform the Crown-owned trailer into "private non-commercial accommodation"; and, section 26 of the Financial Administration Act is explicit that no payment can be made without the authority of Parliament. Therefore, any time a payment is made, it must be authorized either under a law or a properly promulgated regulation or policy. The National Joint Council Travel Directive (NJCTD) is clear that where a member stayed in "Government and institutional accommodation", the member is not entitled to a PAA. The trailer at issue in this grievance was, at all relevant times, "owned and controlled by the Crown", regardless of whether or not it qualified as suitable police quarters. The NJCTD does not authorize payment of a PAA in this case.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied, as, at the relevant time, the trailer at issue fell within the NJCTD definition of "Government and institutional accommodation" as opposed to "private non-commercial accommodation".

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

The Grievor challenged the Respondent’s decision to deny his expense claim for the private non-commercial accommodation allowance (PAA). At Level I, the Adjudicator found that the trailer in which the Grievor had stayed constituted government and institutional accommodation (GIA), rather than private non-commercial accommodation. The Commissioner accepts the ERC’s finding that the Grievor is not entitled to the PAA. The grievance is denied.