Discharge and Demotion Case Summary - R-004

A discharge and demotion board (the "Board") heard evidence that an RCMP member had repeatedly failed to meet performance expectations over the span of several years. However, the Board concluded that the member was not provided with reasonable assistance and could therefore not be discharged from the Force. The Board was critical of the member's supervisor for not doing much beyond documenting the member's errors and suggested that he should have adopted a more hands-on approach to the management of the member's performance. It also concluded that the supervisor was biased towards the member because he resented the fact that she had made a harassment complaint against him. The Board further indicated that the member should have been transferred because there was a poisoned work environment at the detachment to which she had been posted since the beginning of her career. The Board's decision was appealed by the Commanding Officer who argued that the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction by basing its assessment of whether reasonable assistance had been provided to the member on its own opinion as to what measures should have been taken. The Commanding Officer also disputed the finding that the supervisor was biased and that the work environment was poisoned, claiming that there was no evidence to support that finding. Lastly, the Commanding Officer maintained that the Board was remiss in not attaching considerable weight to the member's conduct. The Commanding Officer asserted that the member displayed an unwillingness to cooperate with her supervisor's efforts to bring about improvements in her job performance.

The Board did not exceed its jurisdiction because the RCMP Act's requirement that it determine whether reasonable assistance was provided to the member means that it had to assess the measures taken by management to bring about an improvement in performance and determine whether they were sufficient. The evidence indicated that the supervisor had a deep distrust of the member and was far more interested in laying the groundwork for eventual discharge proceedings than in helping her to improve her performance. It is for that reason, rather than the supervisor's discontent with having been accused of harassing the member, that the member should have been provided with a different supervisor. The evidence concerning the working environment indicated that it was not conducive to the member making major improvements in job performance because of the hostility she faced from several of her colleagues. As it had been shown that the member performed well during a five-month period that she was posted to another detachment, a transfer should have been considered. The evidence also indicated that the member's inability to maintain a consistent level of performance could be attributed to very serious family and health issues that she was confronting at the time. Other factors as well suggested that she had the basic skills to carry out policing work. The accusation that she was impeding her supervisor's efforts to bring about an improvement in her performance was unsubstantiated.

The appeal should be dismissed.

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendation of the Committee and dismissed the appeal.