Grievance Case Summary - G-707

The Grievor volunteered to travel to an isolated post to help conduct an investigation. He stayed at the isolated post for five nights in a vacant, Crown-owned house trailer that he felt was substandard. He filed a claim for a Private Accommodation Allowance (PAA) totalling $250 (five nights at $50 per night) and other costs. The Force refused to pay the PAA portion of the claim. The Grievor presented a grievance, which a Level I Adjudicator denied on the merits. She found that he was ineligible to receive a PAA because the house trailer he stayed in was not a private accommodation, and PAAs were not meant to be compensation for lodgings that are considered subpar.

The Grievor resubmitted his grievance at Level II. He relied, for the first time, on a Briefing Note and a Bulletin that predated the Level I decision by months. He explained that those documents showed that the then Commissioner wished to revise Force policy for the purpose of broadening member eligibility to the PAA, retroactive to a date that preceded his trip.

The ERC found that there were no preliminary issues that prohibited a review of the grievance. However, the new documents the Grievor supplied at Level II were inadmissible. They were available during the Level I process, but the Grievor did not reasonably explain why he could not have offered them as evidence then. In any event, the evidence could not help the Grievor because the Force ultimately did not amend policy to further widen eligibility to the PAA.

In regards to the merits, the ERC found that the Grievor could have been eligible to receive a PAA only if the house trailer at which he stayed was a "private non-commercial accommodation" (i.e. "private dwelling or non-commercial facilities where the traveller does not normally reside").

The Grievor was ineligible to receive the PAA because the house trailer did not fall into this category. It fell within the category of "government and institutional accommodation", as described in both the National Joint Council Travel Directive and the RCMP Travel Directive. The property was Crown-owned and was not being rented by anybody. This removed any private character it may have otherwise had. Moreover, the Grievor did not tender evidence that he could receive a PAA based on a justified exception authorized for program-related reasons. Lastly, the purpose of a PAA was not to reimburse members for what they believed were unsuitable accommodations.

The ERC thanked the Grievor for agreeing to help with a serious matter at an isolated post, and for demonstrating tolerance and professionalism while he stayed there.

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 expense claim for private non-commercial accommodation allowance (PAA). The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. The Commissioner accepts the ERC finding that Grievor is not entitled to PAA as the vacant trailer in which he stayed constituted government and institutional accommodation. The Commissioner also accepts that unsuitability of an accommodation does not create an entitlement to a PAA claim. The grievance is dismissed.