Grievance Case Summary - G-277

A member of the RCMP submitted a harassment complaint against the Grievor. The RCMP accordingly conducted an investigation and informed the Grievor of the complaint and the investigation. He asked the RCMP to allow him to hire a lawyer at public expense to represent him in the investigation. This request was denied. The Level I adjudicator concluded that the grievance was inadmissible because the Grievor had not been adversely affected by the decision being challenged, since the policy in effect on the right to legal representation does not apply to internal RCMP proceedings. The Grievor presented his grievance at Level II eighteen days after he was informed of this decision.

The Grievor did not act within the time limit set out in the Act for presentation of a grievance at Level II, since the time limit is just fourteen days from the date when he learned of the Level I adjudicator's decision.

The Level I adjudicator made an obvious error in law in concluding that the grievance was inadmissible. Since the Grievor's request was to obtain representation in internal proceedings against him, the refusal of this request clearly affected him adversely, which is the only condition to be met in order for the grievance to be admissible.

However, with respect to the merits of the grievance, the Respondent was right in refusing the Grievor's request. The applicable policy does not include any provision granting a member of the RCMP the right to legal representation at public expense for an administrative investigation of a harassment complaint.

It is recommended that the Commissioner state that it is beyond his jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this grievance, since the time limit set out in the Act for presentation of the Level II grievance was not met.

The Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

Acting Commissioner G. J. Loeppky agreed with the External Review Committee's conclusions and recommendation.

The Acting Commissioner found that the Appellant had not met the time limit set out in the Act, and had not provided mitigating circumstances in support of consideration in this regard. As a result, the Acting Commissioner could not support an extension of the prescribed time limit and concluded that it is beyond his jurisdiction to rule on the grievance; he accordingly returned it.