Grievance Case Summary - G-219

The Grievor was in charge of an administrative service. Following the amalgamation of his service with another service, the responsibilities of his position increased. His superior officer believed that the position's classification level should be raised, and he asked that the position be reclassified. The classification officer decided not to raise the classification level. His decision was based on the findings of classification evaluators and on his impression that the amalgamation had not really increased the position's management responsibilities. According to him, even though the duties were more numerous, senior managers were often involved in the decision-making required of the position's incumbent. The Grievor presented a grievance against the refusal to raise his position's classification level. He first stated that the evaluation on which the decision was based was erroneous. According to him, the comparison of his position with the benchmark positions in the classification standard did not take into account several duties of his position. He also considered that the same was true of the comparison that had been made of his position with a position in another division that had a higher classification level. According to the evaluators, the Grievor's position warranted a classification level lower than that of the other position. The Grievor then stated that the classification officer's finding concerning senior management involvement in the decision-making had no basis in fact.

The Grievance Advisory Board recommended that the grievance be rejected. According to the GAB, the position's evaluation report was sufficiently documented, so that rejecting the findings of the evaluators would mean ignoring their classification expertise. The Level I adjudicator did not rule on the merits of the grievance. He rejected the grievance for the reason that the Grievor was not aggrieved, as required under subsection 31(1) of the RCMP Act. According to the adjudicator, nothing guaranteed that the Grievor would remain in the position or that he would necessarily be promoted if the classification level were raised. The Grievor submitted his grievance to Level II.

On January 21, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The External Review Committee first found that the adjudicator's decision was erroneous. The Committee explained that the classification of a position is meant to recognize the value of the work of its incumbent. Under-classifying a position means that the work is not recognized at its true value. According to the logic proposed by the adjudicator, a member could never contest his classification level. In this case, even if it were not guaranteed that the Grievor would have been promoted if his classification level had been raised, he would at least have had that opportunity. The loss of the opportunity to advance his career represented a prejudice that was sufficient for the purposes of subsection 31(1).

The Committee then ruled on the merits of the matter. It found that the comparison that had been made with the benchmark positions had serious deficiencies. The Committee was of the opinion that the lack of explanations, as to why the group of duties encompassed by the position was less important than that in the benchmark positions, was such that it represented a fundamental error in procedure. The Committee also found that there were deficiencies in the relativity study which led the evaluators to find that the position should have a lower classification level than the other division's position. The findings of this study suffered from a major lack of details and explanations. As well, the Committee pointed out that, in conformity with the classification standard and the applicable precedents, the relativity study of a position must be made with other positions at a higher, lower or comparable level. The Committee found that in this case, the selection of only one position in the organization was definitely insufficient for conducting an equitable comparison. The Committee also determined that, according to the facts in the file, the classification officer's finding that senior managers often participated in the decisions relating to the Grievor's position was erroneous. In light of the errors found, the Committee concluded that the classification exercise should be invalidated and a new classification process begun. It recommended that the grievance be upheld.

On April 15, 1999, the Commissioner rendered his decision on this matter. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner found that the Grievor had standing to grieve. He did not, however, accept the Committee's recommendation on the merits of the matter. He found that no error of fact or process had been committed. In his view, the decision not to raise the member's classification level contained sufficient reasons and explanations. The grievance was denied.