Grievance Case Summary - G-520

A Code of Conduct investigation was initiated against the Grievor regarding an allegation that he had acted inappropriately. The investigation determined that the allegation was founded and the Grievor received an informal discipline measure of counselling.

The Grievor believed that the investigation was unnecessary and harassing. He was unsuccessful in his request that the person who initiated the investigation against him be disciplined. In that process, however, he was told that he could have grieved the decision to initiate the Code of Conduct investigation.

Based on this information, the Grievor presented a grievance against the Respondent. Although the Respondent was not the person who initiated the investigation, the Grievor alleged that he was involved in the harassment and as well, he did not inform the Grievor that he had a right to grieve.

The Level I Adjudicator found that the Respondent was not properly named, and that the grievance was actually against the person who initiated the investigation. As the Grievor had another grievance against that person, the Level I Adjudicator found that the present grievance was moot.

The ERC found that the subject of the grievance was the Respondent’s conduct, and not the decision to initiate the investigation. As such, he was properly named and the present grievance was not moot.

However, the ERC found that there was a time limit issue in this case. The conduct complained of was centred around the decision to initiate the Code of Conduct investigation against him, and the present grievance was filed many months after the date of this decision. Furthermore, there were no circumstances justifying that the Commissioner of the RCMP extend the time limit. As the Grievor had presented submissions on the time limit issue in two similar grievances, the ERC found that his right to be heard had been respected. It recommends that the Commissioner rule on it and deny the grievance on that basis.

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 that the grievance was against the conduct of the Respondent, including his involvement in the Code of Conduct investigation and his failure to inform the Grievor that he could present a grievance. Therefore, the Level I decision to name the person who initiated the investigation as the respondent was erroneous, as was the resulting Level I decision finding the grievance moot.

The Commissioner also agreed with the ERC that members are expected to be aware of their rights under the Act, the Regulations, the Commissioner's Standing Orders, and policies which apply to them. Members cannot expect to be informed of their right to grieve, or have the time limits waived or extended because they were not told they could grieve a particular decision, act or omission.

He agreed that the grievance was presented well beyond the thirty-day statutory time limit set out in the Act, and denied the grievance.