Grievance Case Summary - G-445

Shortly before his retirement, the Grievor submitted an application to extend his term of service with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), beyond 60 years of age. However, the A/Commanding Officer recommended that the RCMP deny the request. The file does not contain the reasons for this recommendation. Consequently, a grievance was filed on November 30, 2006.

The Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG) requested information from the parties about the Grievor's standing. The Respondent indicated that the authority to approve an extension of service came under the purview of the RCMP Commissioner and that the matter could not be grieved because it involved a notice of intention to discharge, and the Administration Manual (AM), Appendix II-38-2 stipulates that another recourse exists concerning these notices. There is no indication that the Grievor responded to the OCG.

In the preliminary decision, the Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor did not have standing, because firstly, a recommendation does not cause harm to an individual. Secondly, the Adjudicator found that another recourse existed for this grievance under sections 45.19(1), (2), and (4) of the RCMP Act, and under section 19 of the Regulations. The Grievor requested a review at Level II.

The Committee found that, because the Grievor alleges that he is a victim of discrimination, the conditions required for referring the grievance to the Committee have been fulfilled.

Concerning the intervention of the OCG, the Committee found that, under AM II.38.I.8, it had not overstepped its mandate by deciding that the issue of standing should be examined. Moreover, the OCG had given the parties an opportunity to be heard.

Finally, concerning the issue of standing, the Committee found that the Respondent's recommendation was an action taken in the course of administering RCMP business. Moreover, this action caused harm to the Grievor because the negative recommendation reduced the chances that the RCMP would approve the request to extend his term of service. The Committee also found, unlike the Level I Adjudicator, that there was no other recourse possible. In fact, under section 45.19 of the Act, which the Adjudicator cited, the application could not be admissible in the Grievor's case, because the issue is not one of discharge or demotion. Similarly, section 20 of the Regulations which the Adjudicator also relied on, does not provide for any other recourse in the Grievor's case.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance and refer the file to Level I for processing.

The Grievor withdrew his grievance before the Commissioner could render a decision in this matter.