Grievance Case Summary - G-390

The Grievor was working at the G8 Summit and was provided meals and accommodation at a temporary trailer camp. She later submitted travel claims for daily rates for meals and private accommodation claiming that these were substandard. The claims were rejected. Several other members submitted similar grievances and joined to her grievance. The Respondent argued that the manner in which the travel and meals were planned was justifiable under portions of the Treasury Board Travel Directive (April 1, 1993) ("TBTD") and the RCMP Travel Policy (chapter VI.I of the RCMP Administration Manual) ("AM VI.I"). In response, the Grievor asked for disclosure of several health and safety related reports and also said she would forego claims for monetary compensation. The Respondent asked for a Level I ruling on disclosure.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievances. He relied on prior Committee recommendations (ERC 2200-02-016 to 23 (G-303 to G-310)) to argue that the members should have presented their grievances as soon as they knew about the accommodation and meal entitlements, at the time of joining instructions and advice given prior to the G8 exercise. He ruled that there was no standing because the complaints were related to occupational health and safety and should be pursued according to that policy. In addition, he made four rulings that there was no standing on the basis that specific complaints had no merit. He also found that the grievances were moot for lack of redress because the Grievors said they would forego claims for monetary compensation. Twelve of the original Grievors brought a Level II grievance.

The Committee found that the Level I Adjudicator erred in making rulings on timeliness without the parties being given the chance to be heard on that issue. In addition, the complaints that gave rise to the grievances did not arise until the Grievors were at the G8 Summit and therefore, the grievances were timely. The Committee found that the Level I Adjudicator erred when he did not make a ruling on disclosure. Normally, disclosure should take place before Level I rulings are made. The Grievors were alleging that the Force provided them with substandard accommodations and food services. Any information within the control of the Force that has not already been disclosed and that is relevant and reasonably required by the Grievors should be disclosed.

The Committee found that the Level I Adjudicator also erred in finding he lacked jurisdiction to address grievances on the basis that they related to occupational health and safety. A procedure for occupational health and safety complaints was set out in the RCMP Administration Manual but this alternate process was not one found in the Act, Regulations or the Commissioner's Standing Orders. In addition, the Level I Adjudicator erred when he found that the grievances were moot for lack of redress. The Grievors' willingness at one point to forego their claim of monetary compensation did not mean that they withdrew the claim from their grievances. The Committee also found that in this case the basic requirements of the TBTD and the AM VI.I had not been met, because the standards of the temporary trailer camp were not comfortable and of good quality.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be allowed and that the Commissioner order that the cases be referred back to Level I. The Grievor should be provided with disclosure in accordance with section 31(4) of the RCMP Act, and the parties should be given the chance to make submissions that will be taken into account by the Level I Adjudicator.

The Commissioner of the RCMP decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner concluded that the Level I Adjudicator erred when he failed to grant the Grievors' request for the disclosure of additional information. As a result, the Commissioner directed that the case be returned to Level I so that the grievance process could resume. The Commissioner determined that there should be a reconsideration and redetermination of the matter by a Level I Adjudicator once the record was made complete, since relevant information that was not disclosed could have changed the outcome of the grievance process.

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee that the Level I Adjudicator breached the duty to act fairly, as well as the RCMP's Grievance Policy, by making rulings on standing, time limits, mootness, and the merits of the grievance, without first advising the parties of his intention to consider these issues and giving them the chance to make representations. This also warranted returning the file to Level I, so that the parties could be given the opportunity to make submissions on these issues. The matter would then be reconsidered by a Level I Adjudicator with the benefitof this information.