Grievance Case Summary - G-343

Two civilian members who worked as divisional intelligence analysts sought to have their positions reclassified in order to match the new classification that had been obtained by their counterparts at RCMP headquarters. However, a classification analysis concluded that divisional analysts should be classified one level lower because their scope of decision-making was not as wide. The members grieved that decision because they considered that the scope of their decision-making had been misunderstood. They argued that the impact of their recommendations was not limited to the division but could be nation-wide. Prior to the grievance being presented at Level II, the positions were in fact reclassified to the same level as the headquarters positions but this measure was not made retroactive. The members argued that the decision should apply as of the same date that the headquarters positions were reclassified because the duties performed by divisional analysts had not changed in the interval.

The Grievors have not established that the assessment of their positions for classification purposes was based on any misunderstanding as to the scope of their responsibilities. The fact that the positions were subsequently reclassified is not a relevant consideration especially as there is some indication in the evidence that the duties did evolve over time.

The grievance should be denied.

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

On the issue of the timeliness of the level II submissions, the Commissioner ruled that the correct date of service was the date on which the Appellants were served with the Level I decision, not the date on which it was served on their representative. It would be unfair for grievors to be denied access to Level II simply because their representative withheld the decision. The provision to allow for the joint submission of a grievance by two or more members is not intended to take away individual members' right to be served with a decision and pursue the grievance to Level II.

As for the merits, the Commissioner ruled that a significant change occurred in 1999 which influenced the role and responsibilities of Divisional analysts and he is not persuaded that the Appellants were correct in arguing that the duties did not change.

Accordingly, the Commissioner denied the grievance.