Grievance Case Summary - G-435

The Grievor filed a grievance against the Office for the Coordination of Grievances with respect to the manner, and particularly, the order in which several of her grievances were processed.

The Committee found that the administration of grievances is governed by the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Grievances), SOR/2003-181, and a Force-specific administrative policy, chapter II.38 of the RCMP Administration Manual, and not any government-wide policy which has been made to apply to the RCMP. Therefore, the Committee found that the subject matter of the grievance is not one that is referable to the Committee under s. 36 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988 (SOR/88-361).

The Committee also found it may review procedures followed in order to ensure that grievances are dealt with fairly, but only where there is a s.36 subject involved.

The Committee concludes that it cannot provide findings and recommendations on this grievance to the Commissioner of the RCMP.

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

In a decision dated October 4, 2011, the Commissioner determined that the true problem in the grievance was that the Health Services Officer (HSO) grievance was not opened by the OCG, given a file number, or processed at all. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the grievance was not referable to the ERC, as it concerned the contravention of RCMP grievance policy and the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances), SOR/2003-181, which are Force-specific. However, in the interests of time, the Commissioner decided to reach a decision on the grievance, instead of referring the grievance to the designated Level II Adjudicator.

The Commissioner found that it was clear that the OCG’s failure to open a file prevented the Grievor from having her issue heard by an Adjudicator and denied to her a decision on the issue. The fact that the OCG opened a file respecting the Human Resources Officer’s (HSO) initiation of the medical discharge process, did not change the fact that the OCG did not open a file respecting the HSO’s recommendation that the medical discharge process be initiated. That was a different action by a different respondent.

Nevertheless, in G-434, the Commissioner found that the Force discontinued this medical discharge process, and therefore that the grievance against the HSO became moot. Similarly, the grievance against the HSO’s recommendation to initiate this medical discharge process would also ultimately be found to be moot. As such, the Commissioner did not require the OCG to open a file or process the grievance respecting the HSO’s recommendation.

The Commissioner dismissed the grievance. However, he offered an apology to the Grievor for the Force’s failure to process her grievance when it should have.

The Commissioner directed that all grievances presented and filed with the OCG should be opened and processed. Any questions regarding standing, duplication, timeliness, etc., are to be decided by an Adjudicator after parties have been offered the opportunity to make submissions.