Grievance Case Summary - G-723

The Grievor agreed to travel to an isolated post to perform relief work. He spent 28 nights at the isolated post. He stayed in an apartment inside the RCMP detachment there. In his view, that apartment was unsuitable because it was noisy and lacked privacy. He presented a claim for a Private Accommodation Allowance (PAA) totalling $1,400 (28 nights at $50 per night). The Respondent would not approve his claim. The Grievor filed a grievance. A Level I Adjudicator denied it on the merits. She found that a PAA was not meant to be compensation for "less than ideal" lodgings provided at no cost, and that the Respondent lacked authority to approve a PAA.

The Grievor resubmitted his grievance at Level II. Throughout the grievance process, he urged that the Commissioner had made a Force-wide decision that could entitle him to a PAA. He explained that, according to the decision, members who stayed in Crown-owned housing rented by other members were eligible to receive a 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. It further found that the Grievor could have been eligible to receive a PAA only if the apartment 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 apartment did not fall into this category. Rather, it fell into the category of "government and institutional accommodation" as described in both the National Joint Council Travel Directive (NJCTD) and the RCMP Travel Directive. The apartment was located inside an RCMP detachment, seemingly fell within the definition of "police quarters" and was otherwise a model example of a facility "owned, controlled, authorized or arranged by the Crown". The ERC accepted that, following a decision by the Commissioner, the RCMP amended its Travel Directive to retroactively broaden eligibility to the PAA to members who had stayed in rented Crown-owned housing in isolated communities. This amendment made sense. A Crown-owned accommodation can have a private character if it is being, or is about to be, rented on a more permanent basis. However, an unrented Crown apartment inside an RCMP detachment does not have a private character. It cannot properly be considered a private non-commercial accommodation. The Respondent otherwise lacked authority to approve a PAA.

The ERC thanked the Grievor for agreeing to perform relief work 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 the 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 the PAA as the apartment he resided in while on travel status was government and institutional accommodation. The apartment was unrented and lacked private character to be considered private non-commercial accommodation. The grievance is dismissed.