Grievance Case Summary - G-568

The Force's Relocation Contractor allegedly mishandled the Grievor's relocation funds in a way that left one of the Grievor's moving bills partially unpaid. The Contractor asked the Grievor to cover the balance owing on that bill. The Force later advised the Grievor that if he failed to pay the balance, the sum would be deducted from his remuneration. The Grievor filed a grievance.

During the Early Resolution Phase at Level I, the Grievor presented written comments on the merits of the grievance but did not file any documentary evidence. He also asked the Force to disclose certain documents related to the grievance. There is no record of this request being addressed. The Office for the Coordination of Grievances later prepared a grievance package, which included the Grievor's comments on the merits, and forwarded that package to the Level I Adjudicator. In her decision, the Level I Adjudicator acknowledged that she had reviewed the grievance package. She nevertheless found that the Grievor "provided no submissions on the merits ... [or] evidence in support of his position”. Ultimately, the Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. She reasoned that the Grievor did not meet his burden of persuasion on the merits.

The Grievor re-submitted his grievance at Level II. He made a follow-up request for documents he had sought at Level I. There is no record of this request being addressed. A seemingly new responding party stated that he had no submissions to add.

The ERC stressed that the appointment of a new responding party should be clearly conveyed and noted for administrative, privacy, and fairness reasons. It went on to find that the Grievor was denied procedural fairness, as he was not properly heard. Specifically, the Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor provided no submissions on the merits (even though the record revealed otherwise) and denied the grievance partly on the basis of that finding. Her failure to give a rationale for the finding was a substantive oversight that resulted in an omission to consider the Grievor's arguments. The ERC noted that, where procedural fairness is denied, a decision may still stand if a claim “would otherwise be hopeless”. It observed that the Grievor failed to submit any supporting evidence and that, in such instances, a matter can be denied on the ground that a grievor's burden of persuasion was not met. However, given that the Force did not respond to the Grievor's requests for the disclosure of potentially relevant documents or disclose any materials, despite a statutory obligation to provide disclosure, it is possible that key evidence exists in support of the grievance and that the Grievor was prevented from submitting it. The ERC therefore found that the Grievor's case cannot be considered hopeless at this time.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance on the basis that the Grievor was denied procedural fairness. It further recommended that the Level I decision be declared invalid and that the grievance be sent back to Level I so the Grievor's disclosure requests can be properly dealt with, the parties can be provided the opportunity to present and reply to informed submissions, and that a new decision be rendered on the basis of a complete record.

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

The Commissioner allowed the grievance, as recommended by the ERC. The Grievor presented a grievance against the decision by the Respondent, the Departmental National Coordinator for the RCMP Integrated Relocation Program, that would require him to pay the outstanding balance for shipping the overweight portion of his household goods and effects during a relocation. The Commissioner accepted the recommendations of the ERC and found that the Grievor was denied procedural fairness, declared the Level I decision to be invalid and directed the grievance back to Level I to deal with outstanding disclosure requests, provide the parties an opportunity to fully present their submissions, and render a new decision based on a complete record.