Grievance Case Summary - G-547

The Grievor submitted a leave without pay (LWOP) request to the Force because he had been offered a scholarship to study law at an American school. The Officer in Charge of the Grievor's unit (Respondent) denied the request "due to critical human resource levels". It was also raised that the Grievor had not completed a three-year commitment he had made to his current supervisors.The Grievor resigned from the Force before the Level I decision was rendered.

The Grievor grieved the denial of his LWOP request. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance as he found the Grievor did not establish that the Respondent had failed to comply with policy. The Adjudicator also found there were delays in advancing the LWOP request but no indication that these were wilful or malicious. He stated that the Adjudicator, and not the Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG), should have made the decision to end the Early Resolution phase. Finally, the Adjudicator found if he had upheld the grievance, redress would have been moot because of the Grievor's voluntary resignation.

The grievance is referable to the ERC and the Grievor meets the statutory requirements for standing and time limits at level I. The OCG mistakenly granted an extension of the statutory time limit at Level II, and the Commissioner should allow the Level II grievance to be heard. The Grievor has not established that the Respondent based his decision on irrelevant factors, or that the decision to refuse his educational LWOP request was otherwise unjustified. The Respondent did not respect his obligation to participate in the Early Resolution phase of the grievance proceedings, however, there is no evidence of bad faith. Although the Grievor resigned from the Force, a Level II decision should still be made. Certain new facts/evidence should be considered. The review of this grievance was hampered by the fact that a key document was not part of the record.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance. It further recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP apologize to the Grievor for the fact that the Respondent did not participate in the Early Resolution phase; and, that he order a review for the purpose of clarifying who has the responsibility to ensure that the Level I Adjudicator receives a complete record.

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

The Commissioner agreed with all of the ERC's findings and recommendations, except for the recommendation that the Commissioner order a review for the purpose of clarifying who has the responsibility to ensure that the Level I Adjudicator receives a complete record. The Commissioner noted that the RCMP's policy titled Grievances, AM.II.38, had been amended recently to clarify this issue after the ERC's recommendation and the Commissioner's direction in G-506, where it was also pointed out that the policy was unclear with respect to who was responsible for providing missing material. Section 2.7.4 was added to AM.II.38 to place the onus on a grievor to provide all relevant material to establish his or her case. As such, there was no need for the Commissioner to order a further review.