Grievance Case Summary - G-441

The Grievor was a Surplus to Establishment ("STE") employee who performed Violent Crime Linkage Analysis System ("ViCLAS") work at the Constable level. She learned that ViCLAS members in other regions were ranked as Corporals even though they seemed to be doing the same work she was doing. The Grievor filed a grievance. She argued that people performing the same functions should be paid at the same rate (she referred to this as "equal pay for equal work"), that women and men in similar ViCLAS positions should not be paid differently and that the Force had disregarded its values of fairness and equity. The Grievor sought compensation and benefits to reflect the rank, pay and opportunities of a Corporal for a specific period. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, which he categorized as a classification matter. He held that the Grievor was not entitled to the redress that she sought, in part, because ViCLAS members in STE positions were neither assured of being reclassified nor continuing in their roles; STE positions were not classified or ranked since "in basic terms they do not exist"; the Grievor did not qualify for acting pay; and, the Grievor ultimately did not have standing.

The Committee found the grievance to be referrable. The principle that compensation should reflect the relative value to the employer of the work performed relates to the establishment of pay and allowances, which is a Treasury Board responsibility that is administered, in part, through government-wide policies that apply to the Force. The Committee also found that the Level I Adjudicator erred by identifying the grievance as a classification matter. In the Committee's view, the grievance was really about the Force's refusal to compensate the Grievor for the time that she claimed to have performed duties at a higher level than her own position. In light of this finding, the Grievor clearly had standing.

The Committee found that the Grievor did not present any evidence on the gender issue (i.e. she did not address whether women in ViCLAS positions received less pay than men in similar positions), but that she did establish that the Force had not ensured equality of pay in the broader sense. The evidence showed that the entry level positions of members in ViCLAS units in regions other than the Grievor's was at the Corporal rank. It also showed that the Grievor had performed the same duties as other Corporals, including a Corporal in her own section. Furthermore, the Force had recently placed a similarly-situated ViCLAS member in an acting Corporal position that was created retroactively. In view of this and other evidence, the Committee found that the Force had treated the Grievor unfairly, and contrary to policy, by requiring her when she was an STE to perform duties at a Corporal level without additional pay.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance, and order that the matter be reviewed to determine how the Grievor can be compensated for the additional pay that she should have received. That review should examine all compensation possibilities, including ex gratia payments.

The Grievor withdrew her grievance on January 18, 2010 before the Commissioner had an opportunity to render his decision.