Grievance Case Summary - G-509

The Grievor was the successful candidate in a promotion process for a corporal position in another detachment. In order to complete the promotion process, the Grievor had to relocate. He requested to be provided with government-owned housing in the detachment area for himself and his family. At the time, there was no government-owned housing available.

When the Officer in Charge retired and left the detachment, his government-owned house was given to a local corporal, even though the Grievor had requested it. The Grievor ultimately withdrew from the promotion process, allegedly because he was not able to relocate due to the lack of government-owned housing.

The Grievor filed a grievance after his withdrawal from the promotion process took effect. He submitted that he was not able to complete the transfer as a result of not being provided with government-owned housing. The Respondent raised the issue of timeliness as the Grievor had learned more than four months prior to the grievance that he was not afforded with government-owned housing. The Grievor contended that he filed his grievance within 30 days of his withdrawal. The Level I Adjudicator found that the grievance was not filed within the statutory time limits.

The Grievor filed his grievance more than four months after he reasonably ought to have known that he was not afforded with government-owned housing. Moreover, there are no circumstances that would permit the Commissioner of the RCMP to extend the statutory time limit.

The ERC also found that there was procedural unfairness as the Grievor did not know the case he had to meet regarding the preliminary issue of timeliness.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he deny the grievance on time limits. It further recommended that the Commissioner undertake a review of the RCMP policy provision that restricts the Grievor's right to be heard in rulings to the Level I Adjudicator about preliminary issues.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC and dismissed the grievance.

The Respondent argued that the Grievor was required to present his grievance within thirty days of learning that he would not be provided with government housing, but failed to do so. However, circumstances in this case arose wherein the matter was placed in a "whole new light." The Grievor had been told that the government housing which he desired was being held for the OIC of the detachment, but later discovered that a corporal was given this residence. That event triggered the time period. Unfortunately, the Grievor presented his grievance more than four months after learning this additional information, yet provided no explanation whatsoever for this significant delay. The Grievor argued that his presentation was timely, as it was made within thirty days of confirmation of his withdrawal from the promotion process (he withdrew because of lack of government housing). The Commissioner found that this did not trigger the limitation period, as the confirmation of the withdrawal was confirmation of the prejudice he may have suffered, but was not what caused the Grievor's aggrievement.

The Commissioner also addressed other issues raised by the ERC. First, he agreed that fairness dictated a submission process wherein both parties were provided with the opportunity to make representations to the Level I Adjudicator and the Grievor had an opportunity to reply to the Respondent's submission. He wrote that due to the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, S.C. 2013, c. 18, the grievance process would be undergoing an extensive review. He directed that a vetted copy of this decision be provided to the policy centre so that the ERC's comments could be used in the review.

Second, the Commissioner agreed that the Grievor could not expand the subject matter of his grievance at Level II, and that the Respondent was prohibited by s. 12(3) of the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Grievances) from providing new information at Level II when that material was clearly available to the Respondent at Level I. He wrote:

Taking the time to carefully provide all relevant information and arguments at Level I would ensure that the Adjudicator had a fulsome picture, could perform a thorough review, and could provide a complete and comprehensive decision to the parties. When all of the information is available and considered, the parties may be satisfied with the decision and the matter may not need to proceed to Level II. If it does proceed, then the Level II Adjudicator can consider the information.

Finally, inaccurate information on the certificate of service in this matter and the lack of personal service caused a mistaken concern that the Grievor's presentation at Level II was untimely. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that it is "essential" that certificates of service be accurate and that service must be personal to be properly effected under the Act.