Grievance Case Summary - G-413

The Grievor entered into a job-sharing arrangement to manage her family obligations as a female, married member who was a parent. Prior to signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that set out the job-sharing arrangement, the Grievor inquired as to how her pension contributions would be calculated.

On September 17, 1999, after having signed the MOA, she was advised that the hours not worked would be considered Leave Without Pay (LWOP) and that the pension contribution question was under review. On May 31, 2000 the Grievor and other job-sharing members sent a letter to the RCMP 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 all 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 on July 13, 2000 the latter advised them that they were considered to work part-time, and that pension contributions could only be made for hours actually worked.

The Level I grievance was dated August 15, 2000. The Grievor argued that the hours she did not work would be counted as LWOP, meaning that when she returned to full-time status, she could buy back her 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 RCMP Pension Advisory Committee (PAC) was studying the issue. In submitting further arguments, the Grievor referred to an opinion received by the Pension Advisory Committee (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. She submitted that doing so would not create undue pressure on the Force.

A Grievance Advisory Board (GAB) found that the grievance was out of time because the letter sent to the Commissioner on May 31, 2000 by the Grievor showed that she knew about the decision that was the subject of the grievance before filing the grievance. The Grievor responded that the buy-back of pension benefits was not covered in the MOA or the RCMP Policy on Part Time Employment and Job-Sharing. In addition, she argued that the Force set a precedent by allowing members on LWOP, SFLOWP and Maternity leave to buy back pension benefits for hours not worked. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis of timeliness saying that the Grievor knew or ought to have known when she signed the MOA in July 1999. The Grievor submitted a Level II grievance.

The Committee found that the time-lines had been respected and that the Grievor knew or ought to have known as of July 31, 2000. It was only at that point that she received the Respondent's letter that she would be aware that she was personally prejudiced by the Force policy or position. The Committee also found 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. The Committee 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 Grievor's 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 Grievor.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be allowed and that she order a full review into the Grievor's 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 Grievor was 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 Grievor's 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 Grievor's argument where it fell short of the necessary burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.