Grievance Case Summary - G-621

The Grievor worked at an overseas post where his service was governed in part by the National Joint Council Foreign Service Directives (FSD). The Grievor's accommodation was provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFA). The Grievor identified certain deficiencies with his accommodation. Consequently, he asked that the Head of Mission, a DFA official, give him an Accommodation Deficiency Adjustment (ADA) pursuant to FSD-25 - Shelter (FSD 25). An ADA reduces the cost of an overseas accommodation, in recognition of the impact of deficiencies on the accommodation's livability. The Head of Mission granted an ADA, which reduced the Grievor's costs by a sum the Grievor deemed insufficient. The Grievor challenged that decision at Level I of the RCMP's grievance process (Previous Grievance).

An RCMP official allegedly suggested to the Grievor that he exercise his rights under paragraph 9 of Appendix E of FSD 25 before proceeding with the Previous Grievance. Pursuant to that provision, members like the Grievor could refer ADA-related disputes to the DFA Committee on Accommodation Deficiencies (COAD), for a review and decision. The Grievor took the official's suggestion. He wrote a submission for the COAD wherein he sought a review of the Head of Mission's decision. He gave his submission to the Respondent, the Force's representative on the COAD, who forwarded the submission to the COAD. The COAD decided to award the Grievor a somewhat different ADA, with which the Grievor was still unsatisfied. The Grievor withdrew the Previous Grievance and grieved the COAD decision.

A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the ground that the Grievor did not have standing to present it. She specified that the Grievor failed to show that the COAD decision was made in the administration of the Force's affairs, as required by subsection 31(1) of the RCMP Act.

The ERC agreed with the Level I Adjudicator, finding that the disputed decision was not made in the administration of the affairs of the RCMP and, as a result, that the Grievor did not have standing. The decision was made by the COAD pursuant to FSD 25. The COAD is headed by the DFA and primarily consists of people who are not RCMP members and whose duties are neither governed by an RCMP authority nor overseen by RCMP personnel. Although the Respondent sat on the COAD and the Grievor liaised with members of the Force during the COAD process, these facts did not mean the COAD decision was made in the administration of the Force's affairs. The Force had no authority to change or overrule the COAD decision. In addition, the Grievor did not cite any authority under which the Force could compel the COAD to revisit its decision. He also did not address the claim that the RCMP had no authority to provide redress. The “Grievance Procedure” provision of the FSD does not entitle the Grievor to grieve the COAD decision through the RCMP grievance process.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he deny the grievance.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Grievor presented a grievance challenging the decision made by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee on Accommodation Deficiencies to reduce his Accommodation Deficiency Adjustment. The Respondent raised the preliminary issue of standing on the basis that the decision was not made “in the administration of the affairs of the Force”. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on that basis. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Grievor does not have standing as the impugned decision falls outside the jurisdiction of the RCMP. The Grievance is denied.