Grievance Case Summary - G-665

The Grievor was the subject of two disciplinary notices. He was assigned a member representative (MR), but she went on sick leave before she could represent him at his hearings. Before a second MR could be designated, the Grievor hired a private lawyer and spent approximately $2,000 to review his case for the disciplinary hearing. Subsequently, the RCMP designated other MRs to deal with the Grievor, but each of them was ultimately unable to represent him because, according to the Grievor, their language or legal skills were unsatisfactory or, in one case, the MR was located too far from his region.

The Grievor made an initial request to the Director of Alternative Dispute Resolution (the Director of ADR) for financial assistance to retain outside counsel services. The Director of ADR was unable to grant this request, as he did not have the authority to reject or grant it. The Grievor filed a grievance against this decision. The file suggests that this initial grievance was withdrawn following an agreement upon which the Director of ADR forwarded to the Respondent the recommendation to reimburse the Grievor for his $2,000 fee. On December 11, 2007, the Grievor claimed reimbursement of the $2,000 fee from the Respondent and requested authorization to receive financial assistance to be represented by outside counsel. The Respondent denied this request on January 18, 2008, on the basis that the Grievor could rely on the legal services of an MR.

In his grievance, the Grievor alleged that the Force was unable to provide him with adequate representation using the MR system. As a result, he was entitled to hire a private lawyer and to be reimbursed for legal expenses incurred. He relied on the RCMP's policy on legal assistance at public expense and stated that he had met the criteria set out in that policy to be reimbursed for such expenses.

The Level I Adjudicator dismissed the grievance, stating that the $2,000 fee had not been authorized in advance, as required by the applicable policy. The Adjudicator noted that, in her view, the Grievor had not been able to demonstrate that he was aggrieved, since he himself seemed to want to choose not to be represented by an MR.

The ERC found that the Grievor had standing, that he had presented his grievance within the time limits and that the ERC had jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised in the grievance. The ERC found that provision D.8. of Chapter VIII.4 of the Administration Manual (Legal Assistance at Public Expense for RCMP Employees) specifically prohibited legal assistance at public expense when the employee was involved in an internal RCMP process. In addition, although the Treasury Board policy does not provide for this restriction, it does indicate that the Grievor must have met the RCMP's expectations. The ERC also found that the Grievor had not requested prior authorization to incur the fees of his outside counsel and that he could therefore not be reimbursed.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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

[Translation]

The Grievor challenges the decision not to provide him with Legal Assistance at Public Expense and the fact that he was not reimbursed for costs incurred for meetings with a private sector lawyer. The ERC is of the opinion that the Respondent complied with the applicable Treasury Board and RCMP policies and therefore recommends that the Commissioner deny the grievance. The Commissioner agrees with the recommendations of the ERC and hereby denies the grievance.