Grievance Case Summary - G-731

Between 2011 and 2013, the Grievor travelled to isolated posts to do relief work. He stayed in Crown-owned lodgings, including the homes of members. He sought a Private Accommodation Allowance (PAA) of $50 per night. In 2013, the Force denied his request. The Grievor tendered a grievance. Despite receiving invitations and extensions, he did not supply any submissions or evidence.

The Level I Adjudicator deemed the grievance to be “partially upheld”. He found that, although the Grievor met criteria for being paid a PAA under an amended version of the RCMP Travel Directive, the record lacked information needed to establish the total “prejudice suffered”. The Adjudicator directed that the amended Travel Directive be applied to the situation, and that the Grievor receive any PAA benefits he was owed. It turns out the Force had already done this in 2014. Further to a recent Commissioner’s clarification, the RCMP Travel Directive had been amended to enable the Force to give PAAs to members in certain situations involving travel retroactive to a particular cut-off date. Consequently, the Force paid the Grievor a PAA of $6,950 for his stays at isolated posts after that date, but no PAA for his stays before it.

At Level II, the Grievor questioned the Force’s decision in 2014 to pay him a PAA for his stays in isolated posts after, but not before, the cut-off date. He sought $1,100 in redress. He submitted copies of his unpaid PAA expense claims in support of that request.

The ERC found that there were no preliminary issues that prohibited a review of the grievance. The ERC further found that the scope of the grievance was limited to the Force’s decision in 2013 not to give the Grievor a PAA. The Force’s decision in 2014 to give the Grievor a portion of what he had requested, was a different decision made pursuant to a Commissioner’s clarification and a change in policy. If the Grievor disagreed with it, he could have lodged a new grievance. Moreover, the ERC found that the fresh information and evidence the Grievor filed at Level II were inadmissible. The Grievor could have presented them at Level I, but did not do so.

The ERC determined that the Grievor did not establish that he was entitled to any unpaid claims for a PAA. He did not offer any submissions, evidence or authorities in support of his grievance, nor did he deal with the Respondent’s arguments and evidence that he was not entitled to a PAA. The ERC observed that another member’s Crown-owned residence may be viewed as a private non-commercial accommodation, and that travelling members who stayed in such homes might be entitled to PAAs. However, there were not enough details about where the Grievor stayed to properly assess if a PAA was payable to him. He did not state when, or for how long, he stayed in other members’ Crown-owned homes. He did not quantify the PAA he wanted for those stays or provide any documentation in support of that amount. He also omitted to point to any policies or jurisprudence which supported the payment of a PAA in his situation. Although he urged that he was prejudiced by the inconvenience of staying in other members’ homes, the unsuitability of a Crown-owned lodging does not create an entitlement to a PAA. The ERC thanked the Grievor for his relief service at isolated posts, and apologized for its role in the delay of his grievance.

The ERC recommends that the grievance be denied.

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

The Griever challenged the Respondent's decision to deny his request for the private non-commercial accommodation allowance (PAA). During the early resolution process, the Griever, who had provided relief services at isolated posts between 2011 and 2013, was paid a PAA totaling $6,950.00. His grievance relates to an outstanding PAA amount of $1,100.00 for two stays at an isolated post in early 2011 to provide relief duties. At Level I, the Adjudicator found that the grievance was "partially upheld", but did not order any redress, citing a lack of information in the record in relation to the prejudice suffered by the Griever. The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied, finding that the Grievor had presented evidence at Level II which was inadmissible, and that he had not established his entitlement to the unpaid amount. The Commissioner disagreed with the ERC, pointing out that the Griever had attempted to file the relevant rejected expense claims after resolution discussions broke down a full 18 months prior to the Level I decision, but was deterred by the Office for the Coordination of Grievances. The qrievance is allowed.