Grievance Case Summary - G-737

The Grievor resided at an isolated post. His pregnant spouse went into labour and she was transported to a hospital. The Grievor followed by car the next day. Due to medical complications, the Grievor's newborn child had to remain at the hospital for several weeks. Over this period, the Grievor completed three round trips between his isolated post and the location of the hospital. The Grievor always travelled with his second child.

After his family returned to the isolated post, the Grievor submitted a travel expense claim, which included hotel costs, mileage, meals and parking expenses. The Respondent approved the claim for a reduced amount. The Respondent refused to cover the Grievor's meals, parking and mileage at the higher kilometric rate. The Grievor's claim was further reduced by a Financial Management Advisor, who concluded that the Grievor did not qualify as an escort because he did not escort his spouse to the hospital.

The Grievor submitted a grievance, requesting to be reimbursed the full amount he had originally claimed. The Grievor argued that all of his expenses were approved by his Human Resources Officer (HRO). Furthermore, the Grievor believed that he was entitled to full compensation under various policies, including the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive (IPGHD). The Respondent conceded that the Grievor was entitled to some compensation because of the HRO's preauthorization. However, the Respondent insisted that the Grievor could not claim meal expenses because he failed to submit meal receipts pursuant to the IPGHD. Furthermore, the Respondent contended that the Grievor was not entitled to be reimbursed at the higher kilometric rate because a portion of the trip could have been completed by public transit.

The ERC recommends that the grievance be allowed. The ERC found that, contrary to the opinion of the Financial Management Advisor, the Grievor qualified as an escort because his travel was approved by the HRO. The ERC further found that the Grievor relied on the HRO's representations in good faith that meal receipts were not required. Therefore, the doctrine of estoppel applied to the RCMP's denial of the Grievor's claim for meal expenses. Finally, the ERC found that the Grievor could claim reimbursement at the higher kilometric rate pursuant to the IPGHD.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance and reimburse the Grievor for his travel as an escort, for his dependant's travel, for hotel accommodations, meals, incidentals and for mileage at the higher kilometric rate pursuant to the Grievor's original travel expense claim.

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

The Grievor challenged the Respondent's decision to deny partial reimbursement of his non-elective medical travel expense claim, made under the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive (IPGHD), for expenses incurred when his wife went into early labour and required urgent hospitalization outside the region. He claimed, among other items, the higher kilometric rate for driving expenses, meals without receipts, and parking at his destination. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding the Respondent correctly applied IPGHD policy, that the Grievor required receipts for meals, and parking was covered by the incidental allowance and since public transit was available, the lower kilometric rate must be applied. The ERC found that under IPGHD policy, the higher kilometric rate was restricted only when air service was available, that parking was allowed as a travelling expense and having relied upon a manager's representations, all meal expenses ought to be covered under the equitable doctrine of issue estoppel. The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance. The Commissioner agreed and ordered the Grievor to be reimbursed the full amount of expenses originally claimed.