Grievance Case Summary - G-347

In 1999 and 2000, a number of incidents in his section involving his supervisor made the Grievor uncomfortable. On June 5, 2000, the Grievor met with the officer in charge of the Section ("the Respondent") and told him of his concerns. The Grievor noted that after his meeting with the Respondent, his supervisor adopted a tough attitude with the Grievor. On June 22, 2000, the Grievor filed a complaint of harassment against his supervisor by e-mail. On November 6, 2000, the Respondent indicated to the Grievor that, in his opinion, there was no need to initiate a harassment investigation. On August 28, 2001, over one year after the alleged harassment and over nine months after receiving the Respondent's decision, the Grievor sent a grievance (signed by him on August 16, 2001) to the Grievance Unit, Central Region. On March 14, 2002, the Level I Adjudicator determined that the grievance was inadmissible since it had been filed after the 30-day time limit imposed under the Act.

There seem to be two components to the Grievor's grievance - a grievance of harassment regarding his supervisor's actions and a grievance regarding the Respondent's decision to refuse to open a harassment investigation. The Committee finds that the grievance is not admissible because the Grievor did not respect the 30-day time limit set out under the Act. According to the Grievor, the allegations against his supervisor covered the period from June 8, 2000, to June 26, 2000. The Respondent's decision to not initiate an investigation into the harassment complaint is dated November 6, 2000. The grievance was presented on August 28, 2001, which is well outside the time limit provided for in Section 31(1) of the Act, regardless of the date used, either June 26, 2000, or November 6, 2000. The Grievor provided information to the effect that he was not able to act before the end of September 2000, but the fact remains that he did not present the grievance until late August 2001. With regard to the period between September 2000 and August 2001, the Grievor did not demonstrate that the late presentation was due to circumstances outside of his control, or that there was some confusion about the right to present a grievance or about the time limit for presenting the grievance. Accordingly, the Committee does not recommend that the Commissioner extend the time limit in this case.

In addition, the Committee has considered the issue of whether the Grievor had presented a new grievance in these submissions to Level II. According to the Committee, the grievance form containing a new allegation against the supervisor was not a new grievance but rather, additional information submitted for consideration by the Level II Adjudicator in the context of the original grievance.

The Committee recommends that the Commissioner find the grievance to be inadmissible.

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

[TRANSLATION] Contrary to s. 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act, the Grievor did not present his grievance within the required 30 days. Whereas he was aware of the decision, act or omission giving rise to the grievance on November 1, 2000, the grievance was not presented until August 30, 2001.

The Commissioner agrees with the ERC that the circumstances at issue do not justify an extension under s. 47.4 of the Act. The Grievor did not demonstrate that there was confusion about his right to present a grievance or about the 30-day time limit to present the grievance. Even the Grievor's state of health in 2000 cannot explain a delay of over nine months.

The Commissioner therefore determined that the grievance was not admissible. Consequently, the Commissioner did not have to rule on the merits of the grievance.