Grievance Case Summary - G-560

The Grievance Respondent was responsible for the investigation of an harassment complaint presented by the Grievor. At some point during that investigation, the Grievor asked the Grievance Respondent for a copy of the rebuttals made by the Harassment Complaint Respondents, but the Grievance Respondent refused to provide them to her.

Soon after, the Grievor sent a document entitled 'Harassment Complaint - Second Formal Grievance' to a Staff Sergeant in the Professional Standards Unit (PSU). She believed that this document would be treated as a grievance and forwarded to the Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG). However, there was confusion and the OCG did not receive the document until after the thirty day statutory time limit for presenting grievances had expired.

The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor had not met the time limit requirement. He stated that the Grievor had not followed proper procedure, and there was nothing to justify a retroactive extension of the time period. He also rejected her claim that she didn't know the grievance process, as she had filed a previous grievance and could have sought advice from the OCG. The Level I Adjudicator also determined that the Grievor did not have standing because the harassment investigation was ongoing.

The ERC determined that the Level I grievance was untimely. The Grievor argued that the time limit was extended by a PSU Inspector telling her he was getting further advice. The ERC found that this was not proven, but even if it was, it would not have extended the time limit. The ERC then found that an extension was warranted. It applied the legal test established by the Federal Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v. Pentney, 2008 FC 96, and concluded that the Grievor clearly had the intention to grieve within the thirty days, she had an arguable case, and she believed that the PSU officer would forward her grievance to the OCG in time. Also, the Grievance Respondent made no claim to have been prejudiced by the delay.

The ERC further found that Grievor had standing. She was a member, and the grievance was about a decision made in the administration of the Force's affairs for which there is no other redress. Also, she was aggrieved as the decision had a personal effect on the Grievor. Decisions about the process of dealing with an harassment complaint are grievable.

The ERC recommends that the Commissioner of the RCMP return the file to Level I to allow the process to continue because the parties did not have a full chance to be heard on the merits; the Grievance Respondent did not participate at all at Level I; and the Level I submission dealt exclusively with the issues of standing and the limitation period, as directed by the OCG.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance and return the file to Level I for a hearing on the merits.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC's findings and recommendations. The Commissioner found that the Grievor had presented her grievance outside the 30-day statutory time limit, but extended this time limit retroactively based on the circumstances of the case. He also found that the Grievor had standing to grieve. The Commissioner returned the matter to Level I so that the parties could now be heard on the merits.