G-768 - Private Accomodation Allowances

The Grievor, who intermittently provided relief duties in isolated posts, contested the Respondent’s decision to deny his request for private accommodation allowance (PAA). 

In relying on the Level I decision in a prior grievance (First Grievance), in which it was determined that he was entitled to the PAA for the claims at issue, the Grievor submitted a compilation of his previously denied PAA claims for the period of August 2009 and April 2011, and argued that the Level I decision in the First Grievance should apply. The original Respondent was of the view that the Grievor was entitled to the PAA but said he had had no authority to pay it. At Level I, the subsequent Respondent argued that the grievance, which had been presented on July 27, 2012, had not been submitted within the 30-day statutory time limit as the Grievor was seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred since 2009, and had received the decision in the First Grievance in 2011.

The Grievor argued that he was told to wait to file his grievance by his Staff Relations Representative (SRR) because the question of entitlement of the PAA was being raised nationally, and several SRRs were working directly with Ottawa to try to resolve the issue. The Grievor explained that his SRR subsequently indicated that he had made a mistake in telling him and other members not to flood the grievance system with hundreds of grievances on the same issue. In the Grievor’s view, he should not be penalized for following the advice and direction of his SRR.

The grievance was denied on the preliminary issue of timeliness at Level I. The Level I Adjudicator did not address whether a retroactive extension of the statutory time limit was warranted. At Level II, the Grievor and the Respondent reiterated their Level I arguments.

The ERC found that the grievance was not timely. The ERC applied the four‑factor Pentney test, and found that the Grievor had a continuing intention to pursue the grievance, that the matter disclosed an arguable case, that the Grievor provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, and that there was no prejudice to the Respondent in allowing the extension of time. The ERC pointed out that the events giving rise to this grievance had occurred during a period of turmoil, when the question surrounding a member’s entitlement to the PAA was being debated nationally, and subsequent policy change and clarification were required to resolve the issue. The ERC found that the Grievor had reasonably relied on the information received from his SRR, whose role it was to provide guidance and accurate information to members, and therefore he should not be penalized for following it.  

The ERC accordingly found that a retroactive extension of the time limit to file a grievance was warranted in the circumstances. As a result, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner obtain submissions from both parties, and that she rule on the merits of the grievance, rather than returning the matter to Level I. The ERC further recommended that the Grievor be asked to submit a compilation of all his outstanding PAA claims in order to expedite the Commissioner’s review of his entitlement, and the reimbursement, if applicable.

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

The Grievor filed three grievances challenging a decision denying his expense claim for the private non-commercial accommodation allowance (PAA). The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievances on timeliness. The RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) determined that a retroactive extension was warranted and recommended that the Commissioner seek submissions and rule on the merits of the grievances. The Commissioner accepted the ERC recommendation and allowed a limited retroactive extension of the prescription period. The Commissioner also determined that the Grievor was entitled to some of his PAA claim and partially allowed the grievances.