Grievance Case Summary - G-682

On or about August 16, 2000, while on duty, the Grievor’s firearm was stolen by two women. The Grievor’s version of the facts was that the women stole the firearm from his vehicle while he was in a restaurant. The women alleged that the Grievor had picked them up and he was talking with one of them while the other took the firearm.

The Grievor reported the theft and was eventually charged with having conducted himself in a disgraceful manner that brings discredit to the Force contrary to the RCMP Code of Conduct. As a result, an Adjudication Board imposed a reprimand and ordered a forfeiture of five days’ pay. An investigation report describing the uncertainty surrounding the theft of the firearm was produced by investigators but was never placed before the Adjudication Board.

In February 2007, the Grievor applied for an position which was to become vacant in the summer of 2008. In May 2007, the Grievor and his family were interviewed as part of the selection process. However, the Grievor was eventually advised by the Respondent that a decision had been made to extend the current officers posting by one year, thereby terminating the selection process in which the Grievor had taken part.

In October 2008, the Grievor applied to four new staffing actions but was not selected for any positions. Upon learning that his candidacy had been rejected because of his past discipline case, the Grievor filed a first grievance against the Respondent. The outcome of this grievance is unknown as the file was never submitted to the ERC for review.

In September 2009, the Grievor again applied to four new staffing actions. On November 16, 2009, he learned that his candidacy had again been eliminated as a result of his past discipline case. The next day, the Grievor filed the present grievance alleging that the Respondent made the decision to exclude his candidacy from the above-noted selection processes. In the Grievor’s view, this decision was an abuse of authority that amounts to harassment.

The ERC addressed several preliminary issues, including the one related to the identity of the proper respondent. The ERC then reviewed the relevant harassment test and authorities and decided that it ultimately held that the Grievor did not show on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent engaged in harassment in general, or an abuse of authority in particular. The ERC found that the Respondent’s actions, during his interactions with the Grievor, were reasonable, professional and fair and added that the impugned decision did not offend the principle against double jeopardy as claimed by the Grievor and that the latter was afforded procedural fairness. Finally, the ERC found no evidence that the Grievor’s career was improperly impacted or that he was belittled, humiliated, intimidated or discriminated against.

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

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

The Grievor challenged the Respondent's decision to disqualify him from the selection process for four international liaison officer positions. The Grievor alleged that the Respondent's decision consisted of harassment constituting an abuse of authority, for which the original Respondent, Director of the International Peace Operations Branch (IPOB) and other senior managers were responsible and had blocked his candidacy since 2007 due to "rumours, innuendo and suspicion" arising from an incident for which he had been disciplined in 2001. On two occasions, collateral issues were determined by separate Level I Adjudicators prior to submissions on the merits, including the identity of the Respondent and document disclosure. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the merits, finding the Grievor did not prove on a balance of probabilities, harassment constituting an abuse of authority. The matter was referred to the ERC who recommended the grievance be denied. The Commissioner accepted the ERC recommendation and denied the grievance.