Grievance Case Summary - G-361

The Grievor, a single female, graduated from Depot in September of 2002 and was posted to the Respondent's District. At that time, there was a vacant Crown-owned house in the District, however, it had been reserved for the District Corporal, a position that was vacant. Initially, the Respondent indicated he had made the decision to reserve the house for the Corporal as it was expected that the Corporal would be married. In December of 2002, the position of Corporal was offered to a single female.

The Grievor officially requested the vacant accommodation. She argued that since the new Corporal was single, the property should be allocated on a first come, first served basis, and she considered that she was first. The Respondent declined this request and the Grievor filed a grievance on the basis that the policy was not followed and that she had been discriminated against on the basis of marital status.

The Respondent countered that the Corporal's position was the first identified to be filled and the residence was assigned to this person, thereby satisfying the first come, first served requirement. He also stated that his decision to assign it to the person taking the Corporal position was based on operational reasons and that if the decision was to be made on the basis of size suitability, the Corporal would have priority, because she had a higher salary.

The Committee found that the Treasury Board Living Accommodation Charges Directive ("LACD") and related RCMP Directive were difficult to apply and did not explain what was meant by first come, first served. However the Respondent's position was a plausible interpretation.

Furthermore, the obligation to respect the first come, first served rule was qualified in both the LACD and the RCMP Directive which stated that the first come first served rule will be used "where practicable", but it also stated that "(A)s far as possible, living accommodation should be allocated initially according to the norms for the salary and family size". The RCMP Directive stated "first come, first served basis, by taking into account a precedence by size suitability". Therefore, using size suitability, the house would be assigned to the Corporal, because she had the higher salary.

The Committee found that Grievor was not discriminated against, because the decision was made was in conformity with the applicable policies. It was regrettable that there was such confusion surrounding the matter.

The Committee recommends to the Commissioner that he reject the grievance.

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

Although this grievance is moot, the Commissioner chose to render a decision in order to address some issues of concern.

The Commissioner noted that there is confusion among some Level I Adjudicators regarding the standing requirements under section 31 of the RCMP Act. On occasion, adjudicators are applying reasoning appropriate to the consideration of the merits of the grievance when addressing standing issues. The Commissioner stated that all participants in the grievance process, adjudicators in particular, must educate themselves with respect to the principles applicable to jurisdictional issues.

The Commissioner also commented on the practice of some Level I Adjudicators not to address the merits of a grievance whenever they have ruled that the grievance fails on standing or time limits. Given that several Level I decisions relating to jurisdiction have been overturned at Level II, adjudicators might consider addressing the merits of any grievance in which the circumstances surrounding jurisdictional issues are less than clear. In this way, the Commissioner has the benefit of the Level I Adjudicator's views on the merits in the event that he disagrees with the Adjudicator's decision that the Grievor did not have standing or did not meet time limits.

Finally, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the various policies dealing with the allocation of Force-owned accommodation are confusing and difficult to apply. In addition, it was unfortunate that the Grievor was initially informed that she was refused access to the Force accommodation because she was single. However, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that, in making the decision to allocate the accommodations to the incoming Corporal, the Respondent had applied appropriate criteria.

The Commissioner denied the grievance.