Grievance Case Summary - G-675

In late 2011, the Grievor commenced a secondment from his office in one location in a metropolitan area to another location within the same metropolitan area. In early January 2012, the Grievor and Respondent engaged in a discussion about the Grievor’s entitlement to meal allowance claims for the time period after January 12, 2012, while the Grievor was on secondment. The Respondent claimed that she had advised the Grievor in early January 2012 that no meal claims would be authorized after January 12, 2012.

Ten months later, in November 2012, the Grievor emailed the Respondent indicating that he believed, based on his review of the applicable policies that he was on travel status during his secondment. The Grievor asked the Respondent if the change in travel status would result in him being entitled to meal expenses for the duration of his secondment. The Grievor relied on provisions of the Chapter VI.I of the RCMP Administrative Manual entitled “Travel Directive” (RCMP Travel Directive) and the National Joint Committee Travel Directive to assert that he was entitled to 75% meal allowance entitlement because he was on travel status. The Respondent responded to the Grievor’s November 2012 email by explaining that the Grievor’s entitlement to a reimbursement of meal expenses was now an open question to be determined by subject matter experts. The Grievor later submitted meal expense claims for a period from January to December 2012. In an email reply to the Grievor on December 18, 2012, the Respondent denied the meal claims for the January to December 2012 period, stating that the Grievor had been advised in early January 2012 that he would no longer be entitled to reimbursement of meal claims after January 12, 2012. Twenty-eight days after receiving the December 18, 2012 email from the Respondent, the Grievor grieved the Respondent’s decision. During the Early Resolution Phase of the grievance process, the Respondent challenged the Grievor’s compliance with the thirty-day time limitation to file a grievance at Level I.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the preliminary issue of compliance with time limits at Level I, finding that the Grievor was out of time as the decision by the Respondent had been communicated to the Grievor in early January 2012. The Grievor resubmitted his grievance at Level II arguing that because he had provided new information to the Respondent in November 2012, the December 2012 meal expense denial became a new grievable decision. The matter was referred to the ERC for review.

The ERC found that the Grievance was presented on time because the December 2012 decision could be seen as a new grievable decision based on new information that the Grievor had provided in November 2012. The Respondent had considered and addressed the information provided in November 2012 in making the December 2012 decision. The grievance was therefore presented within the thirty-day limitation period outlined in paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance on the ground that it was timely. The ERC further recommended that if the Commissioner agrees with this approach, she ask for merit submissions from both parties instead of sending the matter back to a Level I adjudicator.

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

The Grievor challenged the Respondent’s decision to deny his meal allowance claims. During early resolution, the Respondent contested timeliness, claiming the grievance was filed more than one year after the date on which the Grievor reasonably ought to have known of her decision to deny the meal allowance claims which exceeded the limitation period of 30 days set out in paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act. At Level I, the Grievor argued the Respondent did not communicate her refusal in January 2012, as alleged. The Level I Adjudicator was persuaded that the refusal was communicated in January 2012, and dismissed the grievance. The Grievor sought a review at Level II and the matter was referred to the ERC. The ERC found that the subsequent inquiry of the Grievor, made on November 2, 2012, concerned a different policy, and combined with the response and subsequent inquiries by the Respondent, resulted in a distinct decision on December 18, 2012. Accordingly, the ERC found the grievance, filed on January 15, 2013, complied with the limitation period. The Commissioner accepts the ERC’s finding that the grievance was presented within the prescribed period. In the interest of time, the Commissioner directs that submissions on the merits be obtained from the Parties and provided to her for a final decision.