Grievance Case Summary - G-546

The Grievor served in the same detachment as her same-sex spouse, who was also a member of the Force. In the fall of 2008, the Respondent became the Grievor's line officer. The Grievor regularly asked him for opportunities to advance her career. He granted some of her requests. He rejected others. The Grievor believed he was refusing a disproportionately large number of her requests. However, she viewed his denials as a "managerial prerogative", and tried to take comfort in his good feedback and assurances of progression. On June 1, 2010, she happened upon some correspondence that upset her. Specifically, she realized that on May 18, 2009, a local Staff Sergeant had sent the Respondent a number of text messages. One of them appeared to make an offensive comment related to her sexual orientation. The Respondent had sent the Staff Sergeant many same-day replies, one of which read "LOL".

On June 30, 2010, the Grievor filed a grievance, submitting that she was denied developmental opportunities on the basis of her gender, sexual orientation, and marital status. The Level I Adjudicator denied most of the grievance on the ground that it was filed outside the 30-day time limit in subsection 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act. She reasoned that opportunities had been denied over a 21-month period, that each denial was separately grievable, and that only one denial predated the grievance by less than 30 days. She allowed the Grievor to grieve that single denial. She believed an extension of the limitation period was unwarranted. The Grievor later learned that the Adjudicator had considered unrelated material the Grievor never received.

The ERC concluded that the aggrievement arose from a linkage between the Respondent's purported bias and his refusals of the Grievor's requested opportunities, not from the refusals alone. The Grievor learned of the linkage on June 1, 2010, when she read the text messages, inferred a bias against her, and connected that inferred bias to her denied requests. As a result, and per subsection 31(2)(a) of the Act, the time limit began to run on that date, as it was when she reasonably should have known she was aggrieved. She grieved within 30 days, thereby rendering the grievance timely. The ERC alternatively found that the Level I limitation period ought to be statutorily extended. It explained that questions of possible harassment and discrimination are of broad importance to the Force as a whole. Lastly, the ERC stressed that relevant material must be shared in accordance with RCMP authorities and procedural fairness.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance on the basis that it was presented on time in all respects. Alternatively, it recommended that he allow the grievance and extend the limitation period at Level I. It further recommended that he return the file to Level I so it can proceed on the merits, where the nature of the text messages and their alleged impact on the Respondent's decisions can be assessed.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the grievance presentation was timely. As such, the Commissioner returned the grievance to Level I so that the grievance process could resume at that level.