Grievance Case Summary - G-358

The Grievor and the other members of his Unit were advised by their supervisor that their Unit "may be required to work later that evening or early the next morning out of town." The Grievor agreed to be available on short notice and as instructed, took his police vehicle to his home. The police vehicle driven by the Grievor was unmarked. The Grievor indicated that as he had his weekly curling game that evening he attended with his assigned police vehicle in which he had loaded his boot bag, equipment and files in the police vehicle to ensure a quick departure directly from the Curling Club, if necessary. Someone broke into the parked police vehicle at the Club and stole the Grievor's handgun, ammunition and other police equipment as well as RCMP files. He had not placed the handgun and ammunition in the gun safe in the police vehicle. He was later charged with two counts of unsafe storage of a firearm. He was also the subject of formal disciplinary proceedings.

The Grievor requested the payment of his legal fees at the public expense respecting the two criminal charges. Later the Human Resources Officer denied the request without the provision of reasons. The matter was grieved and both Grievance Advisory Board (GAB) and the Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance.

Both GAB and the Level I Adjudicator placed importance on the fact that Grievor had used the police vehicle to attend a recreational activity. However, the incident that led to the legal proceedings and to the subsequent request for the payment of legal fees was not the Grievor's use of the police vehicle but rather his failure to properly store his firearm and ammunition as directed in the applicable policy supplement.

The Grievor did not meet reasonable departmental expectations when he unsafely stored the firearm and ammunition in the police vehicle. Policies specific to the Grievor's Unit clearly stated that firearms that must be left in a police vehicle had to be stored and secured in the vehicle gun safe. The Grievor had earlier admitted at a disciplinary proceeding arising out of the same matter that he had conducted himself in a disgraceful manner that brought discredit to the Force. In that disciplinary proceeding, the Adjudication Board found that the allegation of disgraceful conduct had been established. In an earlier case, the Committee (G-313) had stated: "A member cannot possibly be considered to have met reasonable expectations of the Force if the member's action are found to violated the Force's Code of Conduct."

The Treasury Board and the applicable RCMP policies about the payment of legal fees for members at the public expense requires the member to fulfill three conditions: that the member did not act dishonestly or with malice; that the member acted within the scope of his or her duties or employment; and that the member's actions met reasonable departmental expectations. As the member's actions in this case did not meet the test of reasonable departmental expectations, there was no need to determine if the member was acting within the scope of his duties. The parties had agreed that the member had not acted dishonestly or with malice.

The grievance should be denied.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Grievor failed to meet the reasonable expectations of the RCMP when he failed to secure his service pistol in the gun safe provided in the police vehicle. As a consequence, the Grievor was not entitled to reimbursement of his legal fees at public expense.

The Commissioner concluded that the Grievor's actions demonstrated an indifference to the provisions of the Criminal Code and his own unit's policy which required that RCMP firearms be secured in the vehicle gun safe. It should be clear to all members that given the lethal nature of firearms, the Force expects a high standard of adherence to the law and policy relating to the storage of Force issued weapons.

The Commissioner denied the grievance.