Grievance Case Summary - G-531

The Grievor went on medical leave on February 7, 2005 and had not returned to work prior to submitting his grievance. In October 2009, a Health Services Officer (HSO) advised a Return to Work Coordinator (Respondent) that the Grievor’s medical profile had been changed from a temporary to a permanent "06" rating, meaning that the Grievor was no longer employable by the Force in any capacity. The Respondent informed the Grievor of the change to his medical profile and stated that if the Grievor did not wish to be accommodated, his options would be voluntary discharge or medical discharge. The Grievor grieved the change to his medical profile and advised the Respondent of this. He requested the accommodation process be put into abeyance pending resolution of this grievance but this was denied.

The Grievor grieved the Respondent’s refusal to put the accommodation process in abeyance. He submitted that it was unfair for him to not be able to fully present his case without the decision on the medical profile grievance; and, it was prejudicial to order him to report for an interview that would lead to a medical discharge process and his ultimately losing his employment with the Force.

A Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor did not have standing and denied the grievance. She found that the Grievor was not yet aggrieved because, in effect, he was grieving the initiation of a medical discharge process. She also concluded the present grievance was related to the same issue as his medical profile grievance and that the Grievor could not file multiple grievances “relating to the same matter”.

The Grievor claimed the Respondent’s Level II submissions were provided 2 days outside of the 7 day time limit under chapter II.38 of the RCMP Administration Manual (AM II.38.L.5) and should not be allowed.

The ERC’s decision focusses on standing and does not address any matters which concern the merits of the grievance.

The ERC found it had not been established that the Respondent missed the administrative time limit to present Level II submissions. Even if he had, it would recommend that the time be extended so that the submission could be considered, because such a short delay would have caused no prejudice.

The ERC found that the Grievor has standing. The Respondent’s refusal to hold the accommodation process in abeyance pending resolution of the medical profile grievance pertains to the Grievor and affects him directly. The Level I Adjudicator erred by linking the subject of this grievance to the medical discharge process. It is important to note that no Notice of Intention to Discharge had been issued, which in itself would have engaged a separate process for redress.

The Level I Adjudicator should not have addressed whether or not the grievance should be denied because the issues were resolved in an earlier grievance and neither should she have ruled that the Grievor had presented claims without supporting them. These are questions related to the merits.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance, find that the Grievor has met the requirements for standing, and send the grievance back to Level I for the process to continue. It further recommended that this include a review of the file as the subject of this grievance may have become moot because of subsequent events.

The Grievor withdrew the grievance before the Commissioner had an opportunity to render his decision.