Grievance Case Summary - G-429

The named Grievor, a Staff Relations Representative ("SRR"), became concerned about the conduct of a civilian member and reported the conduct. The civilian member filed a harassment complaint against all of the Regional SRRs, including the named Grievor. The Regional SRRs received notification that a Code of Conduct investigation was being ordered against them on the basis of the harassment complaint. The named Grievor later received a copy of the harassment complaint, along with a copy of the investigation mandate and a list of questions for the associated Code of Conduct investigation. The named Grievor then filed the present grievance. He was joined in the grievance by twenty-eight other SRRs.

At a very preliminary stage, the file was sent for adjudication on the issue of compliance with the time limit for filing a grievance. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis of a lack of standing and also made comments touching on time limits and the merits of the case.

The Committee found that the file was incomplete and the evidentiary foundation was insufficient to make determinative rulings on such issues as referability, standing and timeliness.

On a preliminary basis, the Committee found that only the part of the grievance related to an allegation of harassment by the Force against the Grievors may be referable to the Committee for review.

The Committee also found that it was unfair for the Level I Adjudicator to make findings and offer comments about any matters other than the time limit question, as this was the only issue before him.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance and refer the matter back to the early resolution phase of Level I to a different Level I Adjudicator.

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

In a decision dated November 18, 2011, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Grievors did not clearly identify which decisions, acts or omissions they were grieving. He stated that the grievance presentation was vague, yet the Grievors were well aware of the obligation on them to properly state and present their case. The Grievors should have been more particular, as it is up to Grievors to provide sufficient details of what is being grieved. The Commissioner pointed out that as SRRs the Grievors are in fact even more familiar with the grievance process than other members of the Force.

The Commissioner found, however, that the nature of the grievance surrounded the Respondent’s ordering of a Code of Conduct investigation against them. The Grievors attempted to make a distinction between the ordering of the investigation and the questions asked by the investigator (or the extent and mandate of the investigation). The Grievors stated that they were not aggrieved until they read the investigator’s questions and learned of the mandate of the investigation; however, the Commissioner did not agree that the Grievors would believe that the SRR program was affected only when the questions were made available, and not earlier when all of the Atlantic Region SRRs learned they were subject to a Part IV investigation.

The Commissioner found that the Grievors were aggrieved when they learned that the Respondent had ordered a Code of Conduct investigation against all of the Atlantic Region SRRs; therefore, their grievances should have been presented within thirty days from that time.

The Commissioner pointed out that, in the attachment to the grievance presentation, the Grievors stated that they had requested extensive documentation and would provide further formal submissions after receiving those materials. The Commissioner found that the Grievors were clearly aware of the statutory limitation period and how to protect themselves. The argument that it was not the investigation, but the questions and mandate of the investigator which caused the aggrievement, could only be seen as an attempt to justify a missed limitation period.

The Commissioner stated that the Grievors did not prove that a new aggrievement arose from the nature or extent of the investigation or questions. He pointed out that the Grievors had not included any documents to support this contention, such as a copy of the investigator’s mandate or questions, or the harassment complaint on which the investigation was commenced. The Grievors, being the ones claiming that their grievances were presented in a timely manner, had the burden to prove this claim, but did not meet this onus.

As the Grievors did not comply with the limitation period set out in paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act, the Commissioner denied the grievance.