C-068 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant parked her personal vehicle on the side of a retail store. A security guard spoke to the Appellant regarding the location of her car and requested the Appellant move her vehicle. The Appellant did not immediately agree with the request, and in the ensuing conversation, the Appellant produced her RCMP badge.

A few days later, the security guard contacted the RCMP about the incident, which resulted in the identification of the Appellant and contact with the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Appellant’s detachment. The OIC initiated the Code of Conduct process. The Appellant attended a Conduct Meeting where two allegations were found to be established for the breach of section 3.2, abuse of authority and section 2.1, discourtesy. The Respondent ordered the loss of two days’ pay.

Prior to and at the Conduct Meeting, the Appellant made requests for additional time to prepare. The Respondent did not grant the request based on information from a third-party individual that the Appellant would be ready.

The Appellant appealed the Decision, citing a failure to disclose documents, an inappropriate denial of an extension request, and a clearly unreasonable decision.

During the appeal, the Appellant sought disclosure of a document she claimed the Respondent relied on in the Conduct Meeting. To illustrate the Respondent’s reliance, she provided an audio recording of the meeting which she had made without the Respondent’s knowledge. The ERC sought additional arguments from the parties on the acceptance of the secret recording.

Disclosure

The ERC found that the secret recording did not meet the requirements for admitting fresh evidence on appeal. As well, it was not in the interests of justice to admit the recording as it was disclosed late, the written submissions allowed for the proper adjudication of the matter, and there could be a negative impact on the workplace if the recording was admitted. The ERC found that the Respondent provided all the documents which were before him at the time of the Conduct Meeting. Therefore, there was no need to assess the procedural fairness implications of any failure to provide additional disclosure.

Request for Extension

The ERC found that policy did not require the Respondent to provide the Appellant with written reasons for the denial of an extension. As well, the ERC found that the Appellant did not provide sufficient information to conclude that the Respondent had breached her procedural rights when he denied her request for an extension.

Sufficiency of Reasons

The ERC found that the Respondent did not provide a sufficient explanation for why he preferred the security guard’s testimony over that of the Appellant. The ERC previously expressed that an explanation is required when a decision-maker accepts one version of events over another, which did not occur in this matter. Moreover, there was a lack of rational and tenable line of analysis in establishing the allegations.

The ERC recommended that this appeal be allowed on the basis that the Respondent did not sufficiently explain how the Appellant contravened the Code of Conduct. The ERC further recommended that the Commissioner find the allegations established and order the loss of two days’ pay. 

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

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Respondent, who found two allegations of misconduct against the Appellant established, namely that she abused her authority, power or position, contrary to section 3.2 of the Code of Conduct, and failed to treat every person with respect and courtesy, contrary to section 2.1 of the Code of Conduct. Based on these findings, the Respondent imposed the forfeiture of two days’ pay.

The Appellant contended that the Respondent improperly denied disclosure, erroneously refused her request for delay of the conduct meeting, made clearly unreasonable findings and insufficiently explained his decision. She also argued that the conduct measure was disproportionate.

The appeal was referred to the ERC for review. The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed on the basis that the Respondent provided insufficient reasons for his decision. The ERC recommended that both allegations be found established and that a sanction of forfeiture of two days’ pay be imposed.

The Adjudicator determined that the decision was clearly unreasonable due to the Respondent having failed to provide sufficient reasons and support his findings with the evidence at hand, particularly concerning an implied finding of credibility. The appeal is therefore allowed.

Accordingly, the Adjudicator quashed the Respondent’s decision and rendered one of his own. After finding both allegations established, he imposed as conduct measure the forfeiture of two day’s pay.