Grievance Case Summary - G-517

The Grievor was deployed to the 2010 Winter Olympic Games (Games). Prior to his deployment, the Force and the National Joint Council (NJC) indicated that, in view of limited housing options at the Games, most deployed personnel would have to stay in “double occupancy” accommodations (i.e. “two members being assigned to a room with two beds, while maximizing privacy”). Members were advised to contact designated officials if they needed help, or had a grievance, at the Games. The Grievor began his 28-day deployment on February 2, 2010. He lived in a double occupancy lodging the whole time, and disliked it. When he returned to his post in March 2010, he did some research. He concluded that he was entitled to his own room at the Games. On March 22, 2010, he sought related “hardship compensation”, which was denied. He filed a grievance around April 19, 2010. An issue arose as to whether it was initiated within the 30-day statutory limitation period.

The Level I Adjudicator deemed the grievance untimely. In her view, it was about the hardship the Grievor allegedly suffered while sharing a lodging at the Games. On that basis, she found that the limitation period began on February 2, 2010, when the Grievor knew, or should have known, that he was sharing a room. She disagreed that he became aggrieved on March 22, 2010, when he informed himself of NJC policy. She urged that members had to be familiar with relevant policies.

The Grievor was invited to present a submission, and given extra time to do so. He indicated that he would not be filing a submission, and asked that his grievance be sent to Level II without one.

The ERC recognized that its review would be limited, given the Grievor’s failure to explain why he disagreed with the Level I decision. It noted that law and policy required the Level I Adjudicator to decide if the matter was timely and to promptly render a complete written decision that was based on the file, disposed of the issue, and contained proper, adequate, and intelligible reasons. Nothing in the decision revealed that the Level I Adjudicator failed to meet those obligations. Moreover, absent a Level II argument, the ERC was unprepared to speculate about which part(s) of the decision the Grievor may have disputed, had he opted to tender a submission. The ERC found that a retroactive extension would be inappropriate. It queried why the Grievor was unfamiliar with applicable NJC Policy when he predictably began his deployment in a shared accommodation. It also observed that nothing in the record suggested that he contacted the officials he was advised to contact if he had a grievance at the Games. Those officials could have informed him of his rights, and helped him grieve his issues on time. The ERC concluded that the Grievor essentially failed to familiarize himself with NJC policy in time to submit a timely grievance.

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

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC and dismissed the grievance.

The Commissioner found that the time limit for the Grievor to grieve about his living conditions at the Games commenced when he began experiencing his unsatisfactory accommodations. The grievance was presented over two months later, and was therefore outside the time limit set in the Act. A retroactive extension was not reasonable or appropriate in the Grievor's case.

In addition, the Commissioner pointed out that his consideration of a grievance at Level II is a consideration de novo. Subsection 31(1) of the Act stipulates that a member is entitled to present a grievance at each level.