Grievance Case Summary - G-598

The RCMP civilianized all of its Air Services positions in Canada in 2000. Regular members who served in Air Services, including the Grievor, were permitted to retain their positions at their existing ranks, on certain conditions. Specifically, the members would "be frozen in [their] rank and location” and would receive no additional pay unless their newly-civilianized positions had higher pay scales than their existing ranks. Nevertheless, the Grievor and various other regular members holding civilianized Air Services positions across Canada soon began receiving acting pay above their respective civilian pay scales. The Force later directed all Air Services sections to stop this practice. As a result, the Grievor ceased receiving acting pay in excess of his rank.

A number of years later, the Grievor learned that an Air Services section in a different region of Canada continued to pay unauthorized acting pay to similarly-situated members. He asked for retroactive compensation. The Respondent refused the request. The Grievor filed a grievance. It was denied at Level I and resubmitted at Level II. The Grievor asserts that he was treated unfairly. He cites RCMP policy directions, the ERC's findings in ERC 2100-07-002 (G-441), the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter), the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act (PSECA). He also seeks “equal pay for equal work” under the CHRA. In his view, other members were unjustly enriched, to his detriment, “solely due to geographic region”.

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 (1988 Regulations). The ERC found that the present grievance fell outside the scope of subsections 36(b) to (e), as those subsections deal with issues which did not arise in this case.

Subsection 36(a) of the 1988 Regulations concerns cases 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 did not fall within subsection 36(a), as the Grievor did not rely on a government policy applicable to government departments and to members. He instead relied on internal Force authorities and a statute (the PSECA) that had not been proclaimed in force at the date of this report. The ERC noted that subsection 36(a) captures grievances in which the principles and requirements of the Charter and/or CHRA are invoked. Although the Grievor cited the Charter and the CHRA, he did not cite specific provisions of those laws or related jurisprudence, nor did he raise an issue based on a prohibited ground of discrimination in either authority. The ERC observed that section 11 of the CHRA concerns discriminatory wage gaps between males and females. Yet the Grievor did not make a gender distinction argument and the CHRA does not address discrimination “due to geographic region”. The ERC thus found that the grievance could not reasonably be said to be about the Charter or the CHRA. The ERC distinguished G-441 from the present case, as the facts of G-441 raised an issue of discrimination based on gender, contrary to the CHRA, which is an issue within subsection 36(a) of the 1988 Regulations.

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 to 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.