Discharge and Demotion Case Summary - R-005

The Appellant was hired to listen to recordings of conversations, transcribe them, and translate them from a foreign language. Although translating these recordings was, for a long time, the main part of her tasks, the nature of her position changed such that she was transcribing and summarizing an increasing number of recordings in English and French, and translating less often from the foreign language. Over time, her supervisors identified performance issues. The Appropriate Officer (AO) issued to the Appellant a Notice of Intention to Discharge on the ground of unsuitability. The AO felt that the Appellant had failed, on a number of occasions, to fulfil her duties in a satisfactory manner. A Discharge and Demotion Board (the "Board") was convened to review the AO's Notice of Intention. The Board heard from a number of witnesses and considered the representations made by both parties: the Appellant, through her representative, and the AO's representative. In its decision, the Board identified the criteria the AO needed to meet to substantiate the Appellant's discharge for unsuitability:

1. whether the Appellant had failed, on a number of occasions, to fulfil her duties - the nature of which she understood - in a satisfactory manner;
2. whether the Appellant received assistance, advice and supervision to help her improve;
3. whether despite the assistance, advice and supervision, the Appellant showed an ongoing inability to meet the standards; and,
4. whether reasonable measures were taken to assign the Appellant to other duties.

The Board found that the AO had met all of these criteria and ordered the Appellant's discharge. The Appellant appealed the decision.

The criteria set out by the Board were appropriate. The Committee agreed with the Board that the Appellant was aware of the duties of her position and the standards with which she was required to comply. Although she had been hired to translate mostly from a foreign language, the circumstances in her section changed, and the Appellant was provided with the appropriate assistance to fulfil her new duties. In addition, the Appellant enrolled in English language training of her own accord in order to help improve her work, and it is reasonable that her supervisors expected her to use that language more and more frequently. With regard to measuring the Appellant's performance shortcomings, there was sufficient evidence for the Board to find that the Appellant had, on a number of occasions, failed to fulfil her duties in a satisfactory manner. The Committee agreed with the Board that the Appellant had received sufficient assistance, advice and supervision to help her improve. Despite the assistance provided, the Appellant showed an ongoing inability to meet the standards of her duties by continuing to make transcription/translation errors, failing to follow instructions, and being unable to draft the summaries of recordings in a suitable manner. The Committee also found that the RCMP had taken reasonable measures to assign the Appellant to other duties, noting that on at least two occasions, the Appellant was uncooperative with regard those options. This lack of cooperation included filing a grievance against a transfer recommendation.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP dismiss the appeal of the Board's decision.

The Commissioner has rendered a decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Committee and dismissed the appeal of the Board's decision.