Grievance Case Summary - G-443

The Force made a position English Essential. It then advertised the position.

The Grievor filed a Level I grievance because he was allegedly told that the position would not, and should not, be English Essential. He claimed prejudice on the ground that he would have to compete for the position against a larger group. He also asserted that he would suffer a loss of promotion, income and future advancement. The Grievor never filed a submission or sought an extension even though he was given numerous chances to do so.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He found that the Force properly informed the Grievor of his rights and obligations in the grievance process, and gave Grievor an opportunity to make his case. Yet the Grievor did not give due diligence to the directions that he received. As a result, the Level I Adjudicator held that the Grievor did not prove his case on the merits. He also found that no error of process occurred.

The Grievor filed a Level II grievance. The Force informed him that its grievance policy stated that " no new facts or grounds should be presented...to Level II, unless they were not known at the time the file was being processed by Level ". The Grievor submitted new details, anyway.

The Committee agreed with the Level I Adjudicator that the Grievor did not provide enough information to substantiate his grievance. The details that the Grievor added at Level II were known to him at Level I. He therefore should have filed them before the Level I decision was made. He also failed to explain why he did not make a Level I submission.

The Committee further found that the Respondent had presented information confirming the reasons why the Force made the position English Essential. Moreover, the record established that the RCMP Official Languages Directorate had approved that language requirement.

Lastly, the Committee observed that it was not convinced that there was adequate information on the record to confirm that the Grievor had standing. He never explained his connection to the position, and ultimately failed to show how the Force's decision to make it English Essential caused him direct and personal prejudice.

The Committee recommends to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he disregard the details that the Grievor submitted for the first time at Level II, and deny the grievance.

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

Acting Commissioner William Sweeney denied the grievance for lack of standing. He found that the onus was on the Grievor to establish how he was aggrieved by the advertisement of the position as "English Essential". The Grievor's submission that he suffered a prejudice as a result of the language requirement, because it meant that he would have to compete for the position against a larger group, did not suffice to establish standing.

Acting Commissioner Sweeney agreed with the Committee that the record did not contain the information necessary to establish standing. For example, the record did not show that the Grievor applied for the position but was rejected because he did not meet the language requirement, or that he wanted to apply for the position but felt barred from doing so because he did not meet the language requirement. While the latter examples were not mandatory to establish standing, their indication would have demonstrated that he was aggrieved personally.

Since the Grievor failed to establish that he was directly and personally prejudiced by the language requirement of the advertised position, and therefore that he was "aggrieved" pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, Acting Commissioner Sweeney found that he lacked standing to grieve.