Grievance Case Summary - G-279

The grievance concerns the Force's decision to leave the classification of the Grievor's position at the TC-6 level. In 1994, the Grievor was appointed to the position of Regional Environmental Health and Safety Advisor. A site audit of the position was conducted by a classification adviser who submitted a report to an inter-departmental classification committee in which he highlighted the various duties performed by the Grievor. Based on that report, assessed the position using the classification standard for the TC group. The total number of classification points that the Committee awarded to the position fell short of the minimum required to raise the classification of the position to the TC-7 level. The Force accepted the Committee's conclusions.The Grievor maintained that but for errors of fact that were made by the Committee, his position would have been awarded sufficient points to warrant its reclassification to the next higher level. The Grievor also challenged the Committee's composition, arguing that two of its members had a vested interest in ensuring that his position remain classified at the TC-6 level.

The Grievor has not made a compelling case as to why his position should be reclassified or that a new classification committee should be constituted for the purpose of reevaluating his position. While the Grievor undoubtedly has considerable insight into the nature of his responsibilities and that of similar positions within the RCMP and even in other departments, he is not a classification expert and his opinion as to what the classification level of his position ought to be cannot be preferred over that of the Committee members who are all certified classification experts. It is not enough for the Grievor to identify factual errors made by the Committee in order to succeed in having its assessment of his position set aside. What he needed to do was to present expert evidence from a certified classification officer as to what would be the impact of the Committee's errors on the classification of his position. As for the contention that two Committee members had a conflict of interest, the Grievor has not articulated a clear and convincing case as to why a reasonable person ought to have shared his concerns.

The grievance should be denied.

Acting Commissioner G.J. Loeppky agreed with the External Review Committee's findings and recommendation that the member's grievance be denied.

While acknowledging that the grievance met the timeliness requirements and had standing, Acting Commissioner Loeppky found no compelling reason provided by the grievor as to why his position should be reclassified or why a new classification committee should be struck. He also found that the grievor failed to provide any convincing arguments as to why the members of the committee were biased or stood to gain from their classification decision. Acting Commissioner Loeppky denied the grievance.