Grievance Case Summary - G-565

The Grievor served at a two-member isolated post. As a national backup policy, members providing backup were to be compensated depending on the level of standby: Standby Level I means a member is ordered to remain available and able to respond immediately to duty; whereas Standby Level II means a member is requested or volunteers to be available for duty. As a matter of practice at the Grievor's isolated post, when one of the members was off duty or left the detachment area, the other member could rely on peers from nearby detachments for backup.

In April 2008, a memo put an end to this practice. It stated: “Effective immediately there must be at least two members physically located within each Detachment boundary.” At that time, the Grievor was receiving backup pay at the Standby Level II rate. In January 2009, the Grievor learned that members at another detachment declined to volunteer to provide backup duties. These members started receiving Standby Level 1 compensation. The Grievor followed suit and declined to provide backup. He was thus ordered to do so and began receiving Standby Level 1 compensation.

The Grievor requested to be retroactively compensated at the Standby Level 1 rate between April 2008 and December 31, 2008. As a result of the memo stating that two members must be physically located within the detachment area, the Grievor felt that he was ordered to provide backup and no longer had the opportunity to decline standby duties. The Respondent denied his request as the Grievor had not, at that time, been ordered to provide backup.

The ERC observed that five types of grievances are referable to the ERC, in accordance with subsections 36(a) to (e) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988. It found that the present grievance did not fall within the scope of subsections 36(b), (c), (d), or (e), as those subsections all deal with subjects which were not at issue.

The other type of referable grievance, described in subsection 36(a) of the Regulations, involves matters relating to “the Force's interpretation and application of government policies that apply to government departments and that have been made to apply to members”. The ERC found that the present grievance also fell outside the ambit of subsection 36(a), as it was not based on the Force's interpretation and application of a government policy made to apply to members. Rather, it was based on the Force's interpretation and application of its internal backup policy as well as its Administrative Manual on pay and allowances, which are strictly internal RCMP policies. As neither party referenced a comparable, or otherwise relevant authority which fell within subsection 36(a), the grievance was not referable.

This grievance is not referable to the ERC. As a result, the ERC does not have the legal authority to further review the matter or make a recommendation.

The Commissioner agreed that the grievance was not referable to the ERC and sent the grievance to the appropriate Level II decision maker.