Grievance Case Summary - G-634

The Grievor was assigned to a special project. The Grievor’s Medical Profile (MP) at the time indicated that the Grievor’s occupational factor was O3, reflecting that she was fit for operational duty with certain restrictions. When the Grievor’s MP expired, the Respondent, a Health Services Officer, met with the Grievor to assess her situation. He subsequently amended the Grievor’s MP by assigning an O4 occupational factor, as a result of which the Grievor could only perform administrative duties. This amended MP was approved by a Human Resources Officer.

The Grievor filed a grievance identifying the amendment of her MP by the Respondent as the decision being grieved. Submissions by the Grievor’s legal counsel (GC) confirmed that the substance of the grievance related to the Respondent’s decision to amend the Grievor’s occupational factor to O4. The GC relied on the Force’s Administration Manual, chapter II.19 as well as internal Directives and clinical guidelines. The GC submitted that the Grievor’s circumstances did not warrant the amendment of her occupational factor and that the Respondent had erred in rendering his decision by relying on irrelevant considerations and failing to consult the Grievor’s own health care providers. The GC also asserted that the Respondent had improperly ordered the Grievor to obtain an assessment shortly after amending the Grievor’s MP.

The GC also raised issues regarding the Respondent’s use of the Grievor’s personal information. The GC suggested that the Respondent had, in rendering his decision, improperly relied on the Grievor’s medical history relating to a separate process, and that this had resulted in a breach of confidentiality. The GC further argued that the Respondent had inappropriately disclosed the Grievor’s personal information to various parties after amending the Grievor’s MP. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Respondent’s decision was consistent with applicable policy. The Grievor resubmitted her grievance at Level II.

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 1988 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 fell outside the ambit of subsection 36(a), as its subject-matter related to a decision to amend an MP pursuant to a process governed by internal RCMP policies. While the GC presented arguments which bring into consideration the Privacy Act and would involve the interpretation of government wide policy that has been made to apply to
members, these privacy concerns are derivative to the central issue to be addressed in the grievance and which involves compliance with internal RCMP policies.

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 any findings

The ERC returned the file to the RCMP to be addressed by the responsible office(s) within the Force.