Grievance Case Summary - G-436

A Health Services Officer ("HSO") established a medical profile of 06 for the Grievor, which was defined as "unable to perform, on a permanent basis, any operational or administrative duties at the RCMP". He also recommended that the administrative medical discharge process be initiated. The Director General, Human Resources ("DG HR") subsequently approved that recommendation.

The Grievor filed grievances against all three acts/decisions. The Office for the Coordination of Grievances ("OCG") refused to process the grievance against the DGHR and sent the rest of the file to the Level I Adjudicator for a decision on standing prior to advising either Respondent of the grievances and without seeking the parties submissions on the issue of standing. The OCG did advise another individual, whom they treated as the Respondent's Representative ("RR"), that the grievances had been filed. There was no authorization on file naming this person as either Respondent's representative.

The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor lacked standing to grieve the recommendation to initiate the medical discharge process. He referred to, but did not make a decision on, the issue of the assigned medical profile or the DGHR grievance.

The Committee found that the scope of the grievance is limited to the HSO grievance and that both issues raised in that grievance are referable under s. 36 of the Regulations.

The Committee found that there were procedural irregularities in the processing of the grievance, including the failure to provide the parties with an opportunity to make submissions on the question of standing, the failure to notify the HSO that the grievance had been filed or to send him a copy as required by policy, and the OCG's communication with an improperly authorized RR.

The Committee also found that the Level I Adjudicator erred in addressing only the question of the recommendation to initiate the medical discharge process, and not the medical profile issue. The Committee concluded that it is not possible to make a finding on standing as the parties have not had an opportunity to be heard on this issue.

Finally, the Committee found that the OCG did not have authority to refuse to process the DGHR grievance.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance and return the matter to Level I. The Committee also recommended that he order that the grievance form against the DG HR be processed as per the RCMP Policy on Grievances.

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

In a decision dated October 6, 2011, the Commissioner found that there were two grievance forms included in this grievance file: the first pertained to Health Services Officer (HSO), who established a medical profile of “06” for the Grievor and recommended medical discharge proceedings be initiated; the second pertained to the Director General of Human Resources’ (DGHR) approval of the HSO’s recommendation to initiate the medical discharge process.

The DG HR grievance was not processed by the OCG, and was not addressed by the Level I Adjudicator. There were a number of procedural errors that occurred in the processing of the HSO grievance.

Although the ERC recommended that the Commissioner direct the OCG to open a file and process the DGHR grievance and that the Commissioner allow the HSO grievance and refer it back to Level I so that the procedural deficiencies would be remedied before a decision was rendered, the Commissioner found there was no merit in doing so, as the outcome of the grievances were predetermined by his decision in another of the Grievor’s grievances regarding the same medical discharge process (G-444), wherein he considered the substance of the Grievor’s complaints. He would not direct the OCG to institute proceedings when, in his decision in G-444 respecting subsequent steps in this medical discharge process, he already determined that the Grievor did not have standing.

The Commissioner determined that the Grievor lacked standing, as there was another process for redress provided under section 20 of the Regulations. In medical discharge determinations, the decision is made by the appropriate officer (AO), who has the benefit of the review and recommendations by the medical board, after a process providing for procedural fairness. Only after the decision of the AO may the Grievor bring a grievance. The Grievor needs to exhaust the process under s. 20 of the Regulations prior to being able to access the grievance process. A recommendation that the process be initiated, the approval of this recommendation, or the issuance of the Notice of Intention to Discharge to the Grievor are interim steps.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC’s statement in G-444 that the Regulations clearly do not anticipate that members will have access to the grievance process at each interim step in the discharge process, but rather only after the AO decision has been made. He repeated his own statement in G-444 that the medical discharge process is intended to be expeditious and fair. Should a member at the same time bring a grievance regarding the Notice which initiated the process, this may be seen as a collateral attack on the process, and an abuse of process. In this matter, the grievance concerned recommendations which occurred before the Notice was issued. The Commissioner found this to be a further collateral attack, and an abuse of the RCMP grievance process.

The Commissioner stated that any concerns that the Grievor has about the assignment of a medical profile, the recommendation to initiate the medical discharge process, the Notice of Intention to Discharge, disclosure of information, etc. (procedural fairness requirements) should be dealt with in the procedure provided by s. 20 of the Regulations.

The Commissioner denied the grievance, but apologized to the Grievor for the administrative errors and problems she faced in processing her grievances.