Grievance Case Summary - G-419

The Grievor was the subject of harassment complaints which were found to be established. The Grievor was disciplined. During the investigation into the harassment complaints against the Grievor, the Grievor made allegations of harassment and Code of Conduct violations against six members. He asked that the Force launch an investigation.

On December 2, 2004, the Respondent wrote to the Grievor and told him that he decided not to initiate an investigation against two of the members who fell under his command. As to the remaining four members, the Respondent stated that he would forward the allegations to their line officers for decision.

On December 8, 2004, the Respondent wrote to the Grievor and told him that the Respondent had been asked to rule on the Grievor's allegations against the remaining four members, and that the Respondent decided not to initiate an investigation.

On January 7, 2005, the Grievor submitted a grievance dated December 29, 2004, and asked that his allegations be investigated. The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor did not meet the statutory 30 day time limit, based on the December 2, 2004 decision date, and that the Grievor did not have standing. The Grievor presented the grievance to Level II.

Standing: Since the Grievor made allegations against six members and requested an investigation, the Grievor had a personal interest in how the Force dealt with his allegations. Therefore, the Grievor met the criterion of being aggrieved and had standing to present his grievance.

Time Limits: There were two starting points for the 30-day limit at Level 1. For the decision regarding the first two members, the Grievor had 30 days from December 2, 2004 to present the grievance. For the decision concerning the remaining four members, the Grievor had 30 days from December 8, 2004. Therefore, as the grievance was received on January 7, 2005, the Grievor did not meet the first deadline, but met the second.

It is reasonable to assume that there was confusion caused by the fact that the Respondent delivered his decision concerning the Grievor's request for an investigation in two parts. The Grievor's delay is not significant and caused no prejudice to the Respondent.

The Committee found that the Level I Adjudicator erred in his conclusions on standing and time limits and it recommended that the grievance be allowed. The Committee also recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP retroactively extend the time limit so that the Commissioner may respond to the grievance as it related to all six members named in the Grievor's investigation request. The parties did not have had the chance to be heard on the merits, and therefore, the Committee recommended that the Commissioner send back the grievance so that the Level I process can be resumed and completed.

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

Acting Commissioner William Sweeney concurred with the ERC's findings and recommendations. Consequently, he used the authority under section 47.4(1) of the Act to retroactively extend the time limit within which to file the grievance. Since the parties did not have the chance to be heard on the merits of the grievance, the file was sent back to Level I so that the Level I process could be resumed and completed.