Grievance Case Summary - G-686

In 2014, the Grievor made a request to the Respondent to participate in an activity outside of work. After taking into account information provided by various RCMP subject-matter experts and information provided by the Grievor about the activity outside of work, the Respondent denied the request in June 2014. The Respondent’s reasons for the denial were that participants in the activity outside of work adopted a manner of dress similar to those engaged in criminal activity, the personal safety of the Grievor, and risks to the Grievor’s security clearance. A preliminary issue of the Grievor’s compliance with the 30-day time limit to present the grievance at Level I was raised by the Respondent and resolved by a retroactive time extension granted by a Level I Adjudicator in 2016.

In 2018, a different Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the ground that the Respondent’s decision was consistent with RCMP policy, Chapter XVII.1. of the RCMP Administrative Manual entitled, “Conflict of Interest” and was thoroughly supported by documentation and intelligence explaining how the Grievor’s participation in the activity outside of work could be considered an actual, apparent or potential conflict of interest. The Adjudicator acknowledged that the Grievor had made Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) arguments in his merit submissions but stated that he did not have the jurisdiction or mandate to make any decisions pertaining to the Charter. The Adjudicator found that the Grievor’s submissions were “personal opinions” and that the Grievor had failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent’s decision was inconsistent with applicable legislation or RCMP and Treasury Board policies.

At Level II, the Grievor submitted that it was an error for the Adjudicator to not consider his Charter arguments, and it was an error for the Adjudicator to dismiss his submissions as “personal opinion” and in doing so, refuse to consider the Grievor’s evidence. The Grievor submitted that the Respondent’s decision was not reasonable as it was arbitrary and amounted to discrimination against the club that was engaged in the activity.

In 2019, a Level II Adjudicator raised a question as to whether the grievance was moot, noting that the Grievor had been discharged from the RCMP even before the Level I Adjudicator had addressed the matter in 2018. Both Grievor and Respondent made submissions on mootness. The Grievor submitted that even though he had retired and was free to participate in the activity outside of work, there were other serving RCMP members who wanted to participate in the activity outside of work and an outcome of the grievance will affect the other members’ rights to participate in the activity.

The ERC found that merit issues raised in the grievance were moot and that there were no compelling reasons to exercise discretion to examine the merits.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner dismiss this grievance as it was found to be moot. The ERC commented that while participation in activities outside of work may be in a member's personal interest, this interest must be appropriately balanced with the RCMP's organizational interest in maintaining public trust and confidence in the RCMP's ability to meet its law enforcement objectives in an impartial and effective manner.

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

The Grievor challenged a decision by the Human Resources Officer, "X" Division, to deny his request to participate in an activity outside of work. The issue of timeliness was first raised by the OCG, followed by the Respondent. A Level I Adjudicator granted the Grievor a retroactive extension to the limitation period for filing a grievance at Level I, as his health impacted his ability to inform himself of relevant policy and file a timely grievance. At Level I, an Adjudicator denied the grievance on its merits, finding that the Respondent's decision contained extensive information and intelligence from the RCMP and other law enforcement bodies, and that it was not arbitrary. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The Level II Adjudicator raised the issue of mootness as the Grievor was retired. She also found that the Grievor's arguments related to his Charter rights rendered the grievance referable to the ERC. The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied on the basis that it was moot and there were no compelling reasons to consider the issues. The Commissioner accepts the recommendation to dismiss the grievance.