Grievance Case Summary - G-223

The member was a supervisor in a busy detachment. After being off-duty sick (ODS) for a significant period of time, the member indicated that he wanted to return to duty, but not to the same busy detachment. He was told that he would not be considered for a transfer until after he had returned to full duties at the detachment. After returning to full operational duties at the detachment, the member found that he could no longer function under the stress and agreed to a medical discharge. After being served with the Notice of Discharge, and being dissatisfied with the work limitations that it listed, the member submitted a grievance against the discharge and against the Force's "course of conduct" from the time he had become ill until the discharge. He submitted that the Force had violated his human rights by refusing to accommodate him when he had sought to return to duty. He sought to have the contents of the Notice corrected and the payment of damages.

After failed attempts at a mediated settlement, the GAB recommended that the grievance be denied. It found that the only persons who would have access to the contents of the Notice would be the member and the Administration & Personnel Branch, and that a recommendation for payment of damages was outside of its mandate. The Level I adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the only relevant question in the grievance was whether the medical discharge had been reasonable and conducted in a fair manner. He was satisfied that the process of the discharge had been fair and reasonable.

After seeing the member's Level II submissions, which contained information from the member's doctor, who had participated in the medical board but was dissatisfied with the fairness of the medical board process, the Appropriate Officer withdrew the medical discharge. He then took the position that the Level II grievance was moot as a result of the withdrawal of the discharge.

The matter was referred to the Committee. The Committee asked the member for submissions regarding whether there remained any justiciable issues. The member argued that the "course of conduct" complained of in the original grievance had not been addressed by the withdrawal of the Notice of Discharge.

On March 11, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that the grievance as it related to the "course of conduct" had not been rendered academic by the withdrawal of the Notice of Discharge. However, it found that this aspect of the grievance was not within time limits. The Committee found that there were identifiable decisions, acts or omissions in the "course of conduct" grievance, and that when one applied the time limits to these decisions, acts or omissions, it was clear that the time limits had not been respected. What the member saw as the Force's refusal to accommodate-the major aspect of the "course of conduct" grievance-was a decision made in February 1995. The member knew or ought to have known of the Force's position at that time, and could have grieved the matter then. The Committee rejected the member's submission that his medical condition had rendered him unable to appreciate the circumstances giving rise to a grievance. The Committee recommended that the grievance against the "course of conduct" be denied because it had not been submitted within the statutory time limit.

On April 28, 1999, the Commissioner provided his decision in this matter. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee's Findings and Recommendations and he denied the grievance.