Grievance Case Summary - G-430

The Grievor, a Staff Relations Representative ("SRR"), became concerned about the conduct of a civilian member and sought, unsuccessfully, to have disciplinary action brought against her. The civilian member filed a harassment complaint against the Grievor. The Grievor received notification that a Code of Conduct investigation was being ordered against him on the basis of the harassment complaint. The 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 Grievor then filed the present grievance.

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 Grievor 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 Grievor did not clearly identify which decisions, acts or omissions he was grieving. He stated that the grievance presentation was vague, yet the Grievor was well aware of the obligation on him to properly state and present his case. The Grievor should have been more particular, as it is up to a Grievor to provide sufficient details of what is being grieved. The Commissioner pointed out that as a SRR the Grievor is 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 the Grievor. The Grievor 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 Grievor stated that he was not aggrieved until he read the investigator’s questions and learned of the mandate of the investigation; however, the Commissioner did not agree that the Grievor would believe that the SRR program was affected only when the questions were made available, and not earlier when he learned that all of the Atlantic Region SRRs were subject to a Part IV investigation.

The Commissioner found that the Grievor was aggrieved when he learned that the Respondent had ordered a Code of Conduct investigation against all of the Atlantic Region SRRs, and therefore his grievance should have been presented within thirty days from that time.

The Commissioner pointed out that, in the attachment to the grievance presentation, the Grievor stated that he had requested extensive documentation and would provide further formal submissions after receiving those materials. The Commissioner found that the Grievor was clearly aware of the statutory limitation period and how to protect himself. 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 Grievor did not prove that a new aggrievement arose from the nature or extent of the investigation or questions. He pointed out that the Grievor 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 Grievor, being the one claiming that his grievance was presented in a timely manner, had the burden to prove this claim, but did not meet this onus.

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