Grievance Case Summary - G-344

The Grievor challenges the decision of the appropriate officer to suspend him with pay. The appropriate officer ordered the Grievor's suspension because it was alleged that he had violated the Code of Conduct after refusing to obey a senior member's order to undergo a health assessment.

The grievances that can be referred to the Committee are described in section 36 of the Regulations. There is no other legislative or regulatory provision stating that other categories of grievances may be referred to the Committee. This grievance does not raise any issue set out in section 36 of the Regulations. This is a grievance relating to the interpretation and application of the RCMP policy on suspension (Administration Manual, chapter XII.5), a policy that only applies to the RCMP. For this reason, the Committee does not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this grievance.

In addition, the Committee believes that this is an academic question. At the appeal of the Arbitration Board's decision regarding the Grievor, the Commissioner determined that the Grievor had indeed violated the Code of Conduct. However, instead of the order to resign imposed by the Arbitration Committee, the Commissioner ordered the confiscation of ten days of pay, a reprimand and that Health Services regularly monitor the health status of the Grievor. Under section 60 of the Regulations, a member is reinstated in his position where the member has contravened the Code of Conduct and the sanction imposed is not one under paragraphs 45.12(3)(a) or (b) of the Act, namely, dismissal or order to resign. The Grievor was therefore reinstated in his position on the day of the Commissioner's decision. This reinstatement is "retroactive to the date of the member's original suspension from duty" (paragraph 60(2) of the Regulations).

The Committee does not have jurisdiction to hear this grievance.

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

[TRANSLATION] The Commissioner agreed with the Committee's finding regarding the Committee's jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the grievance. However, given the serious delay in this case, he ruled on the merits of the grievance. In this matter, the Commissioner, like the Committee, found that the point at issue was now moot.