Grievance Case Summary - G-542

In 2005, the Force removed the Grievor from operational duty in light of his hearing condition. It placed him in a graduated return-to-work program in which he did administrative work he found intolerable. In mid 2006, he was diagnosed with stress and depression, and went on sick leave. Over time, several officials, including return-to-work coordinators such as the Respondent, were assigned to his file. They tried to accommodate his disabilities by looking for permanent duties, as well as by offering him temporary or uncertain opportunities which he ultimately turned down.

Throughout the process there were a number of communication breakdowns, delays, and held up appointments. Moreover, records were improperly maintained, officials displayed confusion over their roles, and an impasse arose. The Grievor also believed the Respondent improperly accessed his personal information. In April 2008, a medical doctor stated that the Grievor could perform “meaningful” work. Yet it was unclear what that meant. The Force ordered the Grievor to resume administrative functions by partaking in another graduated return-to-work program.

The Grievor presented a grievance in which he challenged the Force's overall administration of his accommodation process. He later retired. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He concluded that the Grievor's lack of cooperation with the Force conflicted with policy, and was the main reason why the Grievor had not yet been accommodated. He added that the Grievor failed to establish that the Respondent did not try hard enough to locate an accommodation. The Grievor went on to file a Level II grievance. In so doing, he reinforced many of his arguments.

The ERC found that the Grievor both met the standing test, and raised live issues. It also found that the grievance was timely. Although the impugned activity began in 2005, the Grievordid not reasonably become prejudiced by the perceived overall failure of his accommodation process until April 2008. He then grieved within 30 days. This had the effect of bringing the entire history of his accommodation process within the scope of the grievance.

The ERC noted that an accommodation process is a multi-party venture in which cooperation is crucial. It found that while the Grievor contributed, at least in part, to missed opportunities, the record revealed that the Force did not satisfy all its accommodation obligations under relevant policies. Specifically, the Force failed to comply with provisions involving consultations, job searches, record-keeping duties, and priorities during lateral/promotional opportunities. Lastly, the ERC found that the Grievor did not show that the Respondent committed a privacy breach.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance and apologize to the Grievor on behalf of the Force for shortcomings in the Grievor's accommodation process. The ERC also recommended that the Commissioner order a review of the Grievor's case to help determine how the Force's accommodation process might be improved for the benefit of all stakeholders.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC's findings and recommendations and allowed the grievance.

The Commissioner found that the Force failed to satisfy its duty to accommodate the Grievor's disability. While the Respondent made some effort to accommodate the Grievor, and while the Grievor did not completely fulfill all of his obligations, nevertheless the Force's accommodation efforts were lacking, as there was a failure to search for meaningful and productive employment, consult the Grievor, and document steps taken. As the Grievor had retired from the Force, the Commissioner could only provide an apology. However, he ordered a review of the Grievor's case to help determine how the Force's accommodation process might be improved.