Grievance Case Summary - G-385

On July 12, 2005, the Grievor, a Staff Relations Representative ("SRR"), was informed in an e-mail from the Director of the Staff Relations Program (the "Respondent") that he had been suspended from the SRR Caucus. This e-mail also stated that restrictions on travel outside of his division continued to apply. The following day, on July 13, the Respondent sent another e-mail to the Grievor indicating that no expenses would be approved by the Respondent. On August 22, 2005, the Grievor sent the Respondent an authorization request for expenses to attend the SRR Caucus to be held in Ottawa from September 17 to 22, 2005. The Respondent turned down his request that same day, citing the suspension.

The next day, August 23, 2005, the Grievor presented his grievance, challenging the decision to deny his travel request and claiming that the Respondent's decision prevented him from doing his job as a SRR. On October 13, 2005, the Respondent challenged the admissibility of the grievance, arguing that the Grievor had known about the decision to suspend him from Caucus since July 12, 2005. The Respondent also pointed out that he had sent the Grievor the e-mail on July 13, 2005. In his subsequent submission, the Grievor stated that he only received the Respondent's decision on August 22, 2005. The Level I Adjudicator dismissed the grievance because the time limit requirement for Level I was not respected.

Under Section 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act, a grievance must be presented at Level I within 30 days after the day on which the member knew or reasonably ought to have known of the decision giving rise to the grievance. In this case, the Grievor was notified on July 12, 2005, of the decision to suspend him from the SRR Caucus and that restrictions on travel outside of the division continued to apply. On July 13, 2005, the Respondent stated in an e-mail that he would not approve any expenses. Although the file does not provide any confirmation that the Grievor did in fact receive the correspondence of July 13, the Grievor did not raise any objection regarding this.

This means that, for the purposes of Section 31(2)(a) of the Act, the Grievor had the necessary knowledge by July 13, 2005, at the latest. On that day, the Grievor was aware of the Respondent's position regarding the potential authorization to travel to the Caucus, and his subsequent request for authorization on August 22, 2005, did not create any new right to recourse since no new information was provided. The denial of this request only confirmed an earlier decision. The file does not provide any explanation that would justify an extension of the Level I time limit requirement under Section 47.4(1) of the Act.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner that the grievance be denied because of failure to respect the Level I time limit set out in the Act.

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

[TRANSLATION] In respect to the time limit for submitting the grievance, the Commissioner found that since the Grievor had learned no later than July 13, 2005, that no future expenses for travel outside [his] Division would be approved, he was aware at that time that this decision would apply to him, even if the expenditure authorization request would be denied only at a later date. The Grievor's submission of an expenditure authorization request did not create a new right to recourse because the refusal of this request simply confirmed the earlier decision. A review of the case did not reveal any new facts in the expenditure authorization request of August 22, 2005. As a result, it would seem that the decision concerning the authorization request does not constitute a new decision. Rather, it confirms the decision originally sent by email on July 12, 2005, and therefore does not create a new right to present a grievance.

The grievance is therefore denied because of failure to observe the time limit.