G-770 - 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 sought reimbursement for his outstanding PAA claims for the period from August 2009 to April 2011, and argued that the Level I decision in the First Grievance should apply.

In finding that the grievance was substantially similar to companion grievances G-768 and G‑769, the Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the preliminary issue of timeliness, without providing the parties an opportunity to address the issue. The Adjudicator did not address whether a retroactive extension of the statutory time limit was warranted.

The Grievor provided submissions on timeliness for the first time at Level II. He explained that his Staff Relations Representative (SRR) was of the view that being successful in the First Grievance would set a precedent. He therefore advised the Grievor not to file more grievances as the SRR expected that the other claims would be settled. However, that did not happen, and the Grievor was then advised by his SRR to proceed with his other grievances. The Grievor argues that he should not be penalized for the SRR’s error.  

As a result of the Level I Adjudicator’s failure to request submissions from the parties on the issue of timeliness prior to rendering her decision, the ERC found that the Grievor’s procedural right to be heard had been breached. However, the ERC determined that the breach was cured because a Level II review is de novo. In other words, the record and the impugned decision(s) are reviewed afresh, without any deference to the Level I decision. As both parties provided submissions on timeliness at Level II, the ERC found that they had had a full and fair opportunity to address the issue. 

The ERC concluded that the grievance was not timely. However, in applying the four-factor Pentney test, the ERC determined 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 that subsequent policy change and clarification were required to resolve the issue. The ERC further 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 30-day statutory time limit to file a grievance was warranted in the circumstances. As a result, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner 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.