Grievance Case Summary - G-231

The member requested that the bilingualism bonus be paid to him retroactively to January 4, 1984, since, according to him, he had been occupying a bilingual position since that date. The RCMP first refused to pay him the bilingualism bonus, giving the reason that the member was a translator and that translators were not eligible for the bilingualism bonus. The member presented a grievance. The member maintained that he did not belong to the "translation group," a group which is excluded from the provisions of the Treasury Board's Directive on the bilingualism bonus, unless a member has duties other than translation which would justify payment of the bonus.

The Level I adjudicator denied the grievance, giving the reason that the decision that was the subject of the grievance was not related to the administration of the affairs of the RCMP, as required by subsection 31(1) of the RCMP Act. The member submitted his grievance to Level II.

Before proceeding with its review of the file, the Committee was informed that the RCMP had agreed to pay the bonus to the member as of October 27, 1994. However, several months later, the RCMP informed the Committee that the payment of the bonus had been made in error, since a review of the member's work description showed that he did not have any other duties apart from those of a translator. The member contested the RCMP's information, by providing additional representations to the effect that he had always had other duties. In particular, the member referred to a memorandum from the Official Languages Coordinator, which recommended that the bonus be paid to him as of May 11, 1993, the date on which he had lost the services of an administrative assistant. The Coordinator had found that he therefore had to perform new tasks, administrative and clerical, that required a knowledge of both official languages.

On July 6, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee first found that even though the contested decision had been made in light of a Treasury Board Directive, the decision was in fact related to the management of the RCMP's affairs. It is appropriate to examine a grievance which concerns the manner in which the RCMP interpreted and implemented such a directive.

The Committee then ruled on the question at issue. It found that RCMP translators belong to the "translation group" and that consequently, they are not eligible for the bilingualism bonus for their work as translators. The Committee then studied the question as to whether the member had duties other than those of a translator which justified the payment of the bonus. The Committee found that the member had not shown that between 1984 and 1993 he was performing duties not related to his work as a translator. However, the Committee found that the recommendation of the Coordinator showed that since May 11, 1993, the duties of the member encompassed duties other than those of a translator. The Committee indicated that the RCMP had not convinced it that the payment of the bonus had been made in error. That decision appeared to have been made on the basis of a work description that was not up to date, whereas the Coordinator had studied the member's duties at his workplace. The Committee found that the member was entitled to payment of the bilingualism bonus as of May 11, 1993. The Committee recommended that the grievance be allowed in part.

On August 26, 1999, the Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner concurs in the findings and recommendations of the External Review Committee ("the Committee"). The Commissioner finds that since May 11, 1993, the member had been performing administrative and clerical tasks that required a knowledge of both official languages. The Commissioner upheld the grievance in part and ordered the bilingualism bonus to be paid to the member retroactively to May 11, 1993 and to continue to be paid to him as long as he continued to perform the administrative and clerical duties. The Commissioner further held that the member would be allowed to keep the payment made to him in respect of the bilingualism bonus since October 27, 1994.