Grievance Case Summary - G-404

The Grievor arranged to participate in the Force's self-funded leave program in 1998. A portion of her salary was deferred and deposited in trust with a trustee/custodian. In April 2002, just prior to the start of the Grievor's self-funded leave, she was informed that she would be responsible for paying the employer's portion of the Canada Pension Plan ("CPP") contribution. She made numerous enquiries about the issue to the RCMP, the trustee/custodian and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency but had difficulty obtaining a full response.

Finally, in April 2003, the Grievor was informed by the Respondent that the authority for the decision that she pay the employer's portion of the CPP contribution was a March 1991 document entitled "Supply and Services Deputy Minister Directive No. 651".

The Grievor filed a grievance requesting that the RCMP reimburse her for the total amount of the employer's portion of the CPP contribution that she paid during her self-funded leave. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that the 30-day time limit was not met. He found that the Grievor became aware of the decision, act or omission giving rise to the grievance in April 2002, and did not present her grievance until April 2003.

The Committee found that the Grievor failed to respect the time limits for filing her grievance, but recommends that the Commissioner use the discretion allowed under section 47.4(1) of the Act to retroactively extend the time limit on the basis that the information provided was unclear or incomplete and it would be beneficial to the administration of the Force to answer the question raised in the grievance.

The Committee also found that the Force policy on this matter was unclear and the Force did not advise the Grievor that she would have to pay double the CPP contribution during her leave. Therefore, the estoppel doctrine applies.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance and order that the Grievor be reimbursed for the amount she paid that represented the employer portion of the CPP contribution.

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

The ERC was correct in concluding that the grievance, filed on April 16, 2003, was presented outside the statutory time limit. The grievance should have been presented within 30 days after April 23, 2002, when the Grievor was advised by the trustee/custodian that during her self-funded leave, she would be responsible for paying the employer's portion of the CPP contribution.

A retroactive extension of the time limit to present the grievance was deemed unwarranted in this case. Acting Commissioner William Sweeney disagreed with the Grievor's explanation that she wanted the authority for the Respondent's decision to be cited before she filed a grievance. The letter dated April 23, 2002, from the trustee/custodian was clear to the effect that during her leave, she would be responsible for paying the employer's portion of the CPP contribution.

Although the Grievor raised an important issue to any participant in the SLWOP program, Acting Commissioner Sweeney was still compelled by the fact that she knew, before she commenced the leave, that the CPP deductions were to occur. Yet, she waited almost a year to present her grievance. These are not circumstances justifying an extension of the time limit.

Acting Commissioner Sweeney directed the Chief Human Resources Officer to perform a review of the policies relative to self-funded leave without pay, to ensure that the matter of RCMP members paying the employer's CPP contribution during the leave period is clarified, since policy to that effect should be specific and clear.