Grievance Case Summary - G-444

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 Office in Charge (OIC), Employee Management Relations (EMR) subsequently issued a Notice of Intention to Discharge.

The Grievor filed two grievance forms, objecting to all three acts/decisions. The Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG) opened a single grievance file and invited the Grievor and the OIC EMR to make submissions on the question of standing. No submissions were received. The grievances were forwarded to the Level I Adjudicator. He determined that the HSO grievance was a duplication of a previous grievance and he denied the OIC EMR grievance on the basis of a lack of standing.

The grievances were referred to the Committee. After receipt of the file, the Committee was advised by the Grievor that materials that she had submitted in support of the grievance had been rejected by the OCG and were not on the record. The Committee confirmed that materials were submitted by the Grievor, but not accepted by the OCG. The Committee secured copies of these materials.

The Committee found that the HSO grievance addresses the same decisions grieved in 3300-06-010 (G-436).

The Committee further found that the Grievor lacked standing to bring the OIC EMR grievance, as there is another process for redress identified in the RCMP Regulations, in the form of the medical discharge process found in section 20.

Finally, the Committee found that there were a number of procedural irregularities in this file, including the OCG’s decision to refuse to process the OIC EMR grievance and instead incorporate it into the HSO grievance, the OCG’s decision to return documents submitted by the Grievor and the failure to acknowledged the Level II grievance form or prompt the Grievor to make a submission.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he decline to consider the issues in the HSO grievance as they are a duplication.

The Committee also recommended to the Commissioner that he deny the OIC EMR grievance.

The Committee further recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he apologize to the Grievor for the procedural deficiencies.

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

In a decision dated September 12, 2011, the Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Committee.

The Commissioner determined that the Grievor’s grievance against the HSO was a duplication of another grievance, and therefore would not consider it.

The Commissioner denied the grievance against the OIC EMR. He found that the Grievor did not have standing, as she had another process for redress. The Grievor could challenge the Notice of Intention to Discharge in front of the medical board pursuant to the process outlined in section 20 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988, SOR/88-361. The issuance of a Notice of Intention to Discharge starts the administrative discharge process under s. 20. The process is concluded with the decision of the appropriate officer, pursuant to s. 20(9). As stipulated in s. 22, only then may a member file a grievance, against the decision of the appropriate officer.

The Commissioner held that the Notice of Intention to Discharge was not grievable in and of itself, as it in fact was a step to ensure procedural fairness for the Grievor in the medical discharge proceedings, such that would receive notice that a decision may be made which could adversely affect her, and could know the case against her.

The Commissioner stated 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.

The Commissioner did, however, apologize to the Grievor for the procedural errors that occurred in the processing of her grievance.