Grievance Case Summary - G-220

The Grievor requested that he be paid the bilingualism bonus retroactively to March 1987, since, according to him, he had been occupying a bilingual position since that time. The RCMP agreed to pay him the bilingualism bonus as of October 12^th, 1994, the date on which he attained a "B" proficiency level in each of the categories evaluated in the second-language (SLE) examination. The Grievor presented a grievance, arguing that regardless of his SLE results, he had always occupied positions designated bilingual, and had worked and served the public in both languages, to the satisfaction of the RCMP. The RCMP indicated that it could not authorize an additional payment of the bilingualism bonus since, according to the Treasury Board, in order to be eligible for a bonus, a member must have maintained at least a "B" level.

The Level I adjudicator rejected the grievance for the reason that the Grievor did not have standing to grieve. He found that the Grievor had no recourse available to him to amend or improve his situation. On the basis of a letter from the Treasury Board Secretariat, the adjudicator indicated that the RCMP had no option but to refuse to pay the bilingualism bonus to the Grievor since he had not obtained a "B" proficiency level in the three categories during the retroactive period in question. The Grievor submitted his grievance to Level II.

On February 2, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The External Review Committee found that the adjudicator had wrongly interpreted the requirements of subsection 31(1) of the RCMP Act relating to standing. The Committee indicated that the loss of income from the bilingualism bonus, to which the Grievor would be entitled if his grievance was sustained, aggrieved him. The Committee added that even though the contested decision was made in light of a Treasury Board directive, the decision was in fact related to the management of the RCMP's affairs. It was appropriate to review a grievance that concerned the way in which the RCMP interpreted and applied such a directive.

The Committee then ruled on the merits. It found, as it had done in files G-204 and G-207, that the RCMP had not used the correct criteria for eligibility for the bilingualism bonus when it had made its decision in this case. Nevertheless, the Committee considered that, even under the applicable Treasury Board directive, the Grievor was not entitled to the bilingualism bonus for the retroactive period in question. The Committee believed that it was inconceivable to find that the duties of the Grievor, as a constable or as a special constable had required a language proficiency lower than a "B" level. The Committee recommended that the grievance be rejected.

On February 19, 1999, the Commissioner provided his decision in this matter. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner agrees with the Committee's findings on all of the issues raised, as well as its recommendation. The grievance is denied.