Grievance Case Summary - G-465

The Grievor was a retired member who requested a transfer allowance for an alleged final move. When his request was denied, he filed a grievance. He felt that he was entitled to an allowance in accordance with a program which was administered by a government policy that applied to RCMP members. However, his grievance form was not sent to, or received by, the Office for the Coordination of Grievances until shortly after the 30-day Level I time limit expired. He explained that since he was retired, he had asked a divisional Staff Relations Representative (SRR) to help him present his grievance. He said the SRR told him to send his form to him so that he could file it for him. He insisted that he did that, within the 30-day time limit.

A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the ground that it was untimely. He held that the Grievor would have been an active member when the relevant grievance policy was in effect. He accordingly refused to accept that the Grievor did not know about the grievance procedures to be followed. He also held that, if that particular conclusion was not shared, then the matter had no merits anyway. He reasoned that a retiring member could not get a transfer allowance.

The Grievor filed a Level II grievance. The record contained extremely limited information.

The ERC reiterated the principle that a retired member may grieve a Force decision arising out of the employment relationship, if the grievance forum is the proper venue.

The ERC concluded that the Grievor did not respect the statutory 30-day Level I time limit. It explained that time limits are mandatory and jurisdiction-limiting; that giving a grievance to a SRR does not meet requirements; and, that members are to be familiar with grievance policy. However, the ERC found that a retroactive extension of the Level I grievance deadline was appropriate in this case. The record showed that the Grievor intended to present his grievance form on time, and that the late filing of it was largely outside of his control. Moreover, the delay was minimal, as was any prejudice it may have caused. Lastly, the ERC found that the Level I Adjudicator's decision on the merits prejudiced the parties. This was so because relevant documents were missing, and the parties were not heard on the merits. In fact, the parties had been advised that the Level I Adjudicator would be making a ruling on the time limits issue only.

The ERC recommends that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance and use his statutory authority to retroactively extend the Level I time limit. It also recommends that the Commissioner of the RCMP return the record to Level I so that the parties can engage in Early Resolution and/or make submissions on the merits.

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

In a decision dated February 1, 2012, the Commissioner disagreed with the ERC and dismissed the grievance, as the Grievor had not presented his grievance within the statutory time limit prescribed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The Commissioner also concluded that the circumstances did not justify granting an extension of the time limit under s. 47.4(1) of the Act. The Commissioner found that it was the Grievor’s decision to submit his grievance through the assistance of a SRR. The Grievor could have provided instructions to the SRR as to when the grievance had to be filed, and could have followed up with the SRR to ensure that it was in fact filed.