Grievance Case Summary - G-203

A member held the position of Regional Environmental Health and Safety Advisor (REHSA) for his division, and sought reclassification of that position. A generic job description applicable to all REHSAs across the Force was submitted for review. It was determined that the existing classification for all REHSA positions was valid; in a further explanation, it was stated that a possibility that there might be further delegation to field positions indicated that the job description might have to be resubmitted. The member filed a grievance against the failure to increase the classification level of his position. The Force took the position that there had been no decision made, and that the submission of the job description had been merely to "test the waters".

The Level I adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that the member had no standing. It was found: that there was no decision made; that the member was not personally affected by the evaluation of the generic job description; that even if there had been a reclassification, there was no guarantee that the member would have been promoted to the higher level; and that the grievance was premature, as there had not yet been a final decision rendered.

On October 23, 1997, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that the member had standing to grieve the refusal to reclassify his position. The job description that was submitted applied to all REHSAs, including the member; it was evaluated and a decision was made to maintain the classification level. The member was personally affected by this decision, as he had a direct interest in the proper classification of his position, and had lost the opportunity for promotion to a higher level as a result of the decision. While it appeared that the decision could possibly be reconsidered on a further submission of the job description, the member did not know at that time whether it would be reconsidered, and was therefore entitled to grieve the decision when he did.

The record indicated that, after initiating the grievance, the member had held it in abeyance while his superiors updated the generic job description and resubmitted it. This led to a second decision to maintain the position's classification level. This second decision, which was not the subject of the grievance, was found by the Committee to have rendered ineffective any remedy that could be granted in this grievance. That is, the proper remedy to be given if the grievance were well-founded would be a re-examination of the classification using an accurate job description. Since this process had already been done, a remedy could no longer be effective against the first decision; only a remedy against the second decision could have been effective. If the member had also grieved the second decision, the merits of the grievance could be considered and a remedy could have been effective. Since the grievance did not relate to the second decision, the Committee recommended that the grievance be denied on the basis that it was moot.

The Committee expressed its concern regarding the process that had led to the first decision, and suggested that the Commissioner consider ordering a full classification exercise to be done.

On June 12, 1998, the Commissioner rendered his decision. The Commissioner agreed with the Committee. He denied the grievance, but also ordered that a full classification review of the position be undertaken.