Grievance Case Summary - G-502

The RCMP Uniform and Dress Manual (UDM) 1, and UDM Appendix 1-1 (Orders of dress), provides different Walking Out Orders for male and female members. The Grievor is a female member of the RCMP. The Grievor submitted a requisition for a pair of congress boots. It appears that she had earlier received overalls and box spurs. The Detachment Commander informed the Grievor that her requisition for male congress boots was denied as the items were not part of the female walking out order. The Grievor grieved this decision. She felt that the dress policy was discriminatory since it differentiated between male and female members. In her view, the policy was outdated and needed to be modernized. Moreover, she added that wearing skirts was not part of her lifestyle.

A Grievance Advisory Board was convened and it found, twice, that the Grievor was aware upon her graduation from Depot what the female Walking Out Order entailed. Therefore, it found that the grievance was not submitted within the statutory time frame.

The Level I Adjudicator disagreed and found that the time limit started to run from when the Grievor's request was denied. However, it denied the grievance on the merits as the Grievor did not demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination.

The ERC agreed with the Level I Adjudicator and found that the 30-day time limit started to run from the denial of the Grievor's request for a male Walking Out Order, not from her graduation from Depot. Therefore, the ERC found that the Grievor submitted her grievance within the statutory time limit.

The Grievor argued that the policy requiring female members to wear the female Walking Out Order was discriminatory, because it created a distinction between male and female members. However, the mere fact of having different Walking Out Orders for male and female members is not prohibited by the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Grievor did not allege any prejudice as a result of wearing a skirt on occasion.

As a result, the ERC found that the Grievor did not present a prima facie case of discrimination.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC's findings and recommendations and denied the grievance.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the grievance presentation at Level I was timely.

The Commissioner noted that the Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG) had failed to provide the Respondent with an opportunity to make submissions at Level II. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Respondent was not prejudiced as a result. Given the passage of time in this matter and the fact that the Respondent's position was well articulated in submissions prior to Level II, the Commissioner found it preferable to render a decision on the merits of the grievance rather than return the file to the OCG so that submissions from the Respondent could be solicited.

With respect to the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner concluded that the Respondent's determination that the Grievor, a female regular member, was not entitled to order and wear overalls (i.e. "trousers") and congress boots as part of the Walking Out Order was not discriminatory. The Commissioner concluded that the Grievor had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Nevertheless, the Commissioner put forth a direction to have the Uniform and Dress Manual amended to allow female regular members to wear overalls and congress boots as part of the Walking Out Order. The Commissioner concluded that female members whose personal preference is to wear overalls and congress boots when putting on the Walking Out Order, rather than a skirt and pumps, should have the option of choosing the former.