Grievance Case Summary - G-521

Sometime in the summer of 2009, the Grievor was a candidate in a promotional process. The Respondent, his line officer, took part in the process by providing a recommendation to the person who had authority to make the decision. The Grievor was not selected for this process.

The Grievor filed a grievance against the Respondent’s refusal to recuse himself from the process since the Grievor had filed harassment complaints against him. He stated that the Respondent’s actions showed ongoing harassment and ongoing prejudice. The Respondent objected to being named as the respondent as he was not the final decision-maker in the promotional process. The file was sent to the Level I Adjudicator for a preliminary decision on the identity of the Respondent. However, the Adjudicator did not address this issue, but found that the Grievor did not have standing as there was another process for redress provided by the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Dispute Resolution Process for Promotions and Job Requirements). Therefore, the Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance.

The ERC found that the Grievor had standing since the grievance was not about the promotional process, but about the Respondent’s alleged harassing and prejudicial conduct in the matter. Therefore, it also found that the Respondent was properly named. The ERC further found that the Level I Adjudicator breached procedural fairness when he rendered a decision on standing while the parties had not been heard on this issue. However, this breach was remedied as the parties addressed the standing issue in their Level II submissions.

As the parties were not heard on the merits, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance and return the matter to the Level I Adjudicator.

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 and his failure to recuse himself from the promotion process due to a conflict of interest with the Grievor. The Grievor had standing, and named the proper Respondent.

The Commissioner returned the file to the Level I Adjudicator for a decision on the merits once the parties had an opportunity to present submissions. Considering the passage of time, the Commissioner expected the matter to proceed in a timely manner.