Grievance Case Summary - G-412

The Grievors entered into a job-sharing arrangement to manage their family obligations as female, married parents. Prior to signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that set out the arrangement, one of the Grievors inquired as to how her pension contributions would be calculated. It was not until after having signed the MOA that they both were advised that job-sharing members were not allowed to make up contributions to that of full-time employment. This was not indicated on the one MOA on record.

On May 31, 2000 the Grievors and other job-sharing members sent a letter to the Commissioner requesting that the option to purchase pension benefits be written into the RCMP Superannuation Act. They stated that job-sharing members, all of whom were female, were penalized compared to members working full-time or those on other forms of leave. The Commissioner referred the matter to the Respondent and in a letter dated July 13, 2000 the Respondent advised them that because they were considered to work part-time, pension contributions could only be made for hours actually worked.

After returning to full-time duty, the Grievors requested buy-back of pension benefits for the hours they had not worked and were denied on October 17, 2000. In a grievance, dated November 14, 2000, they stated that they learned of the decision, act or omission that was the subject of the grievance on October 17, 2000. They requested disclosure of a number of materials including RCMP research on job sharing, minutes of the RCMP Pension Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings related to job sharing, results of the PAC study on job sharing, and any PAC recommendations on job sharing. They also argued that the hours not worked should be counted as LWOP, meaning that when they returned to full-time status, they could buy back their pension benefits for these hours. The Respondent argued that the categorization of such work as part-time leads to the mandatory pro-rating of pension benefits. He also stated that the PAC was studying the issue. In submitting further arguments, the Grievors referred to an opinion received by the PAC that the Income Tax Act provided for full time employees buying back pension benefits for temporary part-time service as long as they met certain conditions and that doing so would not create undue pressure on the Force.

Prior to the Grievance Advisory Board (GAB) recommendation, the Level I Adjudicator ruled that the disclosure request should be denied. In particular, he found that those documents pertaining to research, minutes, and studies were not relevant because they did not represent the RCMPSA or Force policy as it applied to the Grievors. One of the Grievors provided additional submissions, noting that she learned that the PAC had concluded that the change she was requesting did not require a regulatory amendment. PAC stated that it involved an expansion of the current LWOP provisions. This same Grievor also provided statistics showing that job-sharing members fit a specific profile, all had children, and most were married and female. She argued that to treat job sharing differently from such leave as LWOP, SFLWOP and Maternity Leave constituted a breach of the RCMP's Mission, Values and Ethics and also was a breach of the Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S., 1985, c. H-6).

The GAB found that the grievance was out of time because the Grievors received information in October 1999. At Level I, the grievance was denied on the basis of timeliness. The Grievors knew or ought to have known when they signed the MOA in July 1999. The Grievors submitted a Level II grievance.

The Committee found that the time-lines had not been respected but found that the Grievors would not have known they were personally prejudiced until July 2000, upon having received the Respondent's letter. However, the Committee recommended that the grievance be extended under section 47.4 of the RCMP Act. The Committee noted that the discrimination complaint was never addressed by the Force because the Force took the position that it could not allow job-sharing members to buy back pension benefits for hours not worked. It stated that this position was unfounded as the opinion provided to PAC stated that under certain conditions an employer may allow full-time members to contribute pension benefits for a temporary part-time period as if the were working full time. The Respondent was also inaccurate in saying that there could be no limits to this, as the Income Tax Act clearly sets criteria and limits for such arrangements.

The Committee noted that when addressing the Grievors' discrimination complaint, the Force should keep in mind the overarching principles set out in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the RCMP Policy on Human Rights. The Committee also noted that the record left many questions that must be answered in order to provide a response to the Grievors.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be allowed and that the Commissioner order a full review into the Grievors' discrimination complaint.

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

The Acting Commissioner disagreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations and concluded that there is no authority under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act ("RCMPSA") to allow job-sharing members to purchase back pension credits for that time not worked. The Grievors were aware that job-sharing is not a valid term under the RCMPSA and is, therefore, considered part-time work. As such, members contribute to the pension plan based on their hours worked.

The Acting Commissioner further concluded that time not worked while job-sharing could not be considered as Leave Without Pay ("LWOP"), as the provisions of the RCMPSA could not be made to apply to the job-sharing structure where LWOP time is interspersed.

The Grievors' claim of discrimination lacked specificity regarding on which grounds prohibited by human rights legislation the argument was based. The rule that members contribute pension credits on the basis of hours worked is neutral and genuine and job-sharing is open to all employees, not just married female members. The Acting Commissioner decided that he was unable to extrapolate the facts presented to expand the Grievors' argument where it fell short of the necessary burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.