Grievance Case Summary - G-452

The Force gave a position an oral interaction profile of bilingual 'C'. The Grievor was interested in the position, but he did not meet its oral language requirement.

The Grievor filed a grievance. He urged that his manager had blocked his desired career path, and harassed him, by endorsing the contentious language classification. The manager did not address the grievance even though he was the named Respondent. Instead, the person who he allegedly asked to independently assess and select the language profile acted in that role.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He held that the decision to approve the position's language profile was based on a proper review, and that the materials in the record supported the chosen requirement. He also held that the Force followed applicable legislation and policies. He further held that the Force treated the Grievor fairly given that the disputed classification had been independently reviewed. The Grievor submitted a Level II grievance.

The Committee clarified that the Grievor's manager was the Respondent since he was responsible for assigning the position's language designation. Yet it also explained that it was reasonable to have the individual who independently reviewed and decided upon that profile respond to the grievance. This was so because he was the one with knowledge about the process that was followed in making the decision at issue. That process involved a detailed cross-referencing of the position's duties with official languages principles.

The Committee found that the scope of the grievance was limited to the decision to set the position's language profile. In making that finding, it relied on the Federal Court's reasoning in Rogers v. Canada (Department of National Defence), [2001] F.C.J. No. 222. The Court in that case held that when deciding whether to intervene in a decision to staff a position requiring particular linguistic requirements, the "only relevant issue ... is whether or not the position objectively requires the linguistic requirements which were designated". The Committee also pointed out that the Force was dealing with the Grievor's harassment concerns separately.

The Committee observed that the position's language requirement was independently reviewed. It found that when the position's duties were measured against the principles of the Force's Official Languages Policy and a related guideline, there was support for the conclusion that the oral interaction level should be bilingual 'C'. It was unfortunate that parts of the process caused confusion and concern for the Grievor, but this did not change the fact that the record supported the chosen profile.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he deny this grievance.

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 ERC and denied the grievance. He found that the rationale for the language requirement was appropriate, and was set by the Respondent’s Representative in an unbiased and fair manner. The La Gendarmerie a établi un profil d'interaction orale bilingue « C » pour un poste qui intéressait le requérant, mais ce dernier ne répondait pas à cette exigence linguistique.Commissioner found that the position’s oral interaction language requirement of level C was justified. The Grievor failed to establish on a preponderance of probabilities that the linguistic profile of the position was overrated.