Grievance Case Summary - G-467

The Grievor presented a grievance concerning the Respondent's refusal of a claim for travel expenses incurred during a trip taken as part of his duties as the Divisional Staff Relations Representative. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, noting that the Grievor failed to establish the merits of his grievance. The Grievor presented a Level II grievance, asking that the ERC hold a hearing. Moreover, he submitted that the RCMP Commissioner should allow the grievance owing to non-compliance with the 45-day time limit in the early resolution phase. He also challenged the Respondent's decision to appoint another officer to represent him and asked for the assistance of legal counsel to represent him.

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.

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 that it is important to comply with the rules established as part of the grievance process.

Although the Grievor was entitled to be represented by 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.

The Grievor did not show that he had been 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 merits of the grievance, the Grievor provided only very few details at Level I. The ERC emphasized that it is important that the parties in a grievance provide all of the information that is relevant to their view of the issues raised. The Grievor did not provide sufficient details to establish the merits of his case.

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.