Grievance Case Summary - G-275

From April 11 to 13, 2000, the Grievor was travelling on official business. Rather than use an RCMP vehicle to get around, as the Respondent had previously told him to do when he was travelling on duty, the Grievor used a personal vehicle. In the travel claim for this trip which he submitted on April 14, 2000, the Grievor requested compensation at the "employee rate" set out in Treasury Board's Travel Directive, that is, 10 cents per kilometre. While the Respondent agreed to compensate the Grievor for all the other costs he incurred during this trip, he refused to pay him a kilometrage allowance.

When he presented his grievance at Level I, the Grievor asked the Respondent to provide information as to the authority allowing some officers in the division "to keep a police vehicle for their personal use while on vacation". The Respondent objected to this request. The Level I adjudicator made an interlocutory decision, concluding that the Grievor had not demonstrated that the information requested was relevant to his grievance. The Grievor then presented his grievance at Level II.

The grievance is inadmissible at Level II since the Level I adjudicator had still not ruled on the merits of the grievance when the Grievor decided to present his grievance at Level II.

The Commissioner should state that it is beyond his jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this grievance.

Acting Commissioner G. J. Loeppky agreed with the External Review Committee's conclusions and recommendation and suggested that the grievance be returned to Level I for decision.

The Acting Commissioner found that the appointment of the alternative adjudicator at Level I was justified, that the Level I adjudicator had not yet ruled on the merits of the grievance, that is, on the refusal to pay a kilometrage allowance, and that the substantive grievance should be addressed at Level I first, in accordance with the process stipulated in the RCMP Act.