Grievance Case Summary - G-716

The Grievor was deployed to an event, from February 12 to 28, 2010. During his time there, he stayed in a double occupancy room. After his deployment, he claimed the private non-commercial accommodation allowance (PAA) as compensation for his stay in the double occupancy room. The Respondent denied the claim, and the Grievor filed a grievance in response.

During the Early Resolution phase, the Respondent requested that a Level I Adjudicator rule on whether the Grievor had met the statutory time limit to present his grievance at Level I.

The grievance was denied at Level I. The Adjudicator determined that the subject of the grievance was the prejudice that the Grievor claimed to have suffered as a result of his shared accommodation. Since the Grievor was aware of the prejudice from the moment he arrived at the event, the Adjudicator found that the grievance had been submitted well after the 30-day statutory time limit.

The Grievor's grievance challenges the Respondent's independent decision to deny him the PAA. Since the Grievor submitted his grievance within 30 days after the day on which he learned of this decision, it follows that the time limit set out in paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act was met.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be allowed. It also recommended that the Commissioner rule on the merits of the grievance rather than referring it to Level I. As such, submissions on the substantive issues should be exchanged immediately at Level II.

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

[Translation]

The Grievors were deployed to an event, and they found that the accommodations provided did not meet the requirements in effect. Their consequent claims for private non-commercial accommodation allowance (PAA) were denied by the Respondent. With respect to the preliminary matter of the limitation period, the ERC found that the Grievors filed their grievances in time and therefore recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievances, but emphasizes that the substantive issue is unfounded. The Commissioner rejects the ERC's finding regarding the limitation period, but accepts the suggestion that the cases are unfounded in any event.