Grievance Case Summary - G-555

The Grievor submitted a request to his immediate superior for leave without pay (LWOP) so he could take part in a foreign mission. The mission was to begin about one week later. The immediate superior denied the Grievor's request, citing operational reasons. The Grievor subsequently informed the Commanding Officer (Respondent) several times that he wished to discuss his denied request. Under the applicable policy, only the Respondent could approve LWOP. The Respondent also asked his superiors to clarify the operational reasons for denying the request. A few days before the Grievor's scheduled departure, the Respondent's office informed him that his request would be forwarded to a Human Resources Officer (HRO) for "subsequent action," with no additional explanation as to the nature of such action. A few days later, having been unable to meet with the Respondent or the HRO, the Grievor decided to retire so he could take part in the mission.

The Grievor filed two grievances—one against his immediate superior and the other against another superior involved in the decision-making process. The grievances were identical in that both challenged the refusal to approve LWOP. The Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG) combined the grievances and designated the Respondent as the appropriate party to respond to the grievance. The Grievor stated that he had been forced to sign his retirement documents and had been subjected to harassment and discriminatory treatment. He challenged the operational reasons as the basis for the denial of LWOP and indicated that his immediate superiors had settled an issue that only the Respondent could decide on. The Respondent stated that he had been out of the office for most of the brief period established by the Grievor. Even if he had received the request in time, recommendations would have been obtained from the line officers. The Level I Adjudicator dismissed the grievance, indicating that the immediate superior's decision was merely a recommendation and that only the Respondent could decide on the LWOP request. The Adjudicator maintained that the operational requirements outweighed the Grievor's interests and that the Grievor had not been subjected to harassment or discrimination.

It would have been preferable for the OCG to have referred the issue of the Respondent's identity to a Level I Adjudicator. A new Respondent was designated, while the grievance dealt in large part with the actions of certain managers, who in the grievance process, did not directly respond to their alleged actions. In terms of the merits of the grievance, the ERC noted that the Grievor could reasonably have expected that an LWOP request sent to his hierarchical supervisor would be dealt with in accordance with RCMP policy. Moreover, the Grievor's superiors indicated that the decision to deny the LWOP request was final, which ran counter to this same policy. Further, the Grievor's superior officers should have demonstrated greater transparency and provided the Grievor with more information about the status of his LWOP request. The ERC also stated that the operational reasons put forward by the Grievor's superiors appeared to be somewhat contradictory, and that the process for considering and conveying these reasons seemed to lack transparency. However, despite the apparent deficiencies in the handling of the Grievor's LWOP request, the ERC found that the Grievor had not been subjected to harassment or discriminatory treatment.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance and apologize to the Grievor for the manner in which his LWOP request was handled. The ERC also recommended that the Commissioner order a review of the RCMP's leave policy to determine whether it could be amended to clarify the LWOP request process.

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

[TRANSLATION]

The Commissioner allowed the grievance to the extent that the Grievor’s superiors should have immediately referred his LWOP application to the Respondent. The Commissioner rejected the Grievor’s argument that he was the victim of discriminatory treatment, harassment or abuse of authority or forced to retire from the RCMP. Consequently, the redress sought is denied.