Grievance Case Summary - G-466

The Grievor requested special leave, which was refused by the Respondent. In response, the Grievor presented a grievance, and it appears that he took the special leave without permission. Before the grievance arising from the refusal was resolved, the Respondent withdrew the hours of the unapproved leave from the Grievor's bank of leave. In response, the Grievor presented a grievance. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. The Grievor presented a Level II grievance, requested a hearing, invoked non-compliance of the 45-day time limit in the early resolution phase, challenged the Respondent's decision to appoint another officer to represent him, and requested the assistance of legal counsel.

The ERC denied the Grievor's request for a hearing, noting that the Grievor could not submit information relevant to the grievance at a Level II hearing that could have been presented at Level I. Moreover, no issues, such as credibility of the parties, which may justify a hearing, were raised.

The Grievor did not show that he was affected adversely by the extended early resolution phase and he did not raise this concern at Level I. The fact that this phase lasted longer than 45 days is not sufficient to allow the grievance.

With regard to the Respondent's decision to be represented by another officer, the grievance process entitles each party to be represented, although Respondents are encouraged to seek representation in exceptional circumstances only. Given that the Respondent in this issue was the Division Commander, his decision to be represented was reasonable. Although the Grievor could have been informed about the decision sooner, it did not affect him adversely. Nonetheless, the ERC recommended that the RCMP Commissioner remind members of the importance of complying with the rules established as part of the grievance process.

Although the Grievor was entitled to be represented by legal counsel or another representative, he was to do so at his own cost, because the applicable policy did not allow the RCMP to provide legal services in the case of a claim initiated by a Crown servant.

No policy regarding a supervisor's authority to unilaterally withdraw a member's hours of leave was provided to the ERC by the parties. The opinion of the ERC is that the individual authorized to approve an application for leave also has the authority to order that an employee's bank of leave accurately reflect decisions taken, and that if the Grievor had taken leave without permission, it would be appropriate for the Respondent to order that the hours of this unapproved leave be withdrawn from the Grievor's bank of leave, pending the outcome of the other grievance.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

The Grievor withdrew the grievance on August 27, 2009 before the Commissioner had an opportunity to render his decision.