Grievance Case Summary - G-559

The Grievor asked for and received a transfer to an isolated post. Some of his effects could not be shipped to that post. The Force therefore arranged to store them near the post he would be leaving, at its expense, allegedly in accordance with a relocation policy. The Grievor asked the RCMP to instead ship those effects to a home he owned in another province. He supported his request with a financial analysis showing that his approach could benefit his family and save the Force money. A superior refused the Grievor's request. On July 10, 2008, the Grievor received the decision. Months later, he prepared a “business case ... in another format”. It declared that it was “developed to aid in the decision making process for R.C.M.P. Relocation Services”. He mailed the business case to two contacts, and to the Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG). His contacts suggested he raise a grievance. The OCG simply returned the document.

On December 17, 2008, the Grievor formally grieved the Force's decision not to transport some of his belongings to a home he owned in another province. The Respondent asserted that the grievance had been presented outside the 30-day statutory Level I time limit, and was therefore statute-barred. The Grievor conceded that “the timing of when I filed my official grievance may become an issue”. However, he argued that he was unaware of the time limit, that he could not have been expected to know about the time limit, that no one told him he could grieve until after the lime limit expired, and that his reformatted business case was really an “appeal”. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the ground that it was untimely. The Grievor disputed that decision at Level II. He reinforced his position. He added that a review of the merits could lead to positive changes in the way members at isolated posts were dealt with by relocation services.

The ERC determined that the Level I grievance was untimely. It clarified that under subsection 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act, a Level I grievance must be initiated within 30 days after the day upon which the aggrieved member knew, or reasonably should have known, of the impugned decision. The ERC found that the Grievor knew about the impugned decision on July 10, 2008, and that he grieved it on December 17, 2008. That was over 30 days later. The ERC also found that an extension of the Level I time limit was unjustified. It reached that conclusion, in part, by applying the adaptable and contextual test for extending time limits, as set out by the Federal Court of Canada. The ERC found that none of the factors making up that test favoured an extension. The Grievor did not possess a continuing intention to grieve. His reasons for the delay were unreasonable, given that members had to be familiar with grievance authorities, and that the reformatted business case plainly described itself as something other than a grievance. It was also unclear if the record raised an arguable case, or if an extension would be prejudicial. Finally, the ERC found that the Grievor's concerns were too narrow and situational for a positive decision on the merits to have more than a remote possibility of broadly affecting the RCMP.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance on the ground that it was out of time at Level I.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the RCMP External Review Committee and denied the grievance. The Commissioner concluded that the grievance was presented outside the thirty-day statutory time limit and that a retroactive extension of the time limit was not warranted.