C-092 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant appealed the Conduct Authority’s (Respondent) decision that found two allegations pursuant to sections 3.3 and 4.1 the Code of Conduct established. The Respondent imposed a forfeiture of three days’ leave for Allegation 1 and a forfeiture of two days’ pay for Allegation 2. The Appellant argues that the Respondent ignored relevant evidence and that her decision relied on a discriminatory policy. In the alternative, the Appellant submits that the conduct measures were unreasonable.

This appeal stems from the Appellant’s involvement in a secondary employment while he was Off Duty Sick (ODS). It was alleged that the Appellant pursued his volunteer activities notwithstanding the RCMP’s denial of his request for secondary employment. It was further alleged that the Appellant travelled outside his duty area without authorization. While the conduct proceedings were ongoing and a month prior to the conduct meeting, the RCMP overturned its denial of the Appellant’s request for secondary employment retroactively to the date of his second request. The Respondent nonetheless found both allegations established.  

The ERC first found that the decision was clearly unreasonable since it either did not address crucial evidence provided by the Appellant or the Respondent made a factual error. Namely, the Respondent failed to address the retroactive approval of the Appellant’s secondary employment request. The Respondent further erred when she stated that the Appellant failed to provide medical evidence. The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed and proceeds in recommending the findings that should have been made.

Regarding Allegation 1, the ERC found that the order was lawful and that the Appellant disobeyed the order. The ERC further found that the retroactive approval of the Appellant’s secondary employment request had no impact on the findings whether the Appellant disobeyed a lawful order. Notwithstanding the retroactive approval, the Appellant chose, at the time, to disobey the order his superior gave him. Regarding Allegation 2, the ERC found that the Appellant was aware that he did not have authorization to travel outside his duty area while ODS. Nevertheless, the Appellant admitted to travelling outside his duty area. Consequently, the ERC found both allegations established. 

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed. In recommending the findings that should have been made, the ERC recommends that both allegations be found to be established. With respect to conduct measures, the ERC recommends that the imposed conduct measures for both allegations be upheld and the appeal be dismissed.