G-766 - Promotion

On May 8, 2013, the Grievor received an email informing him that his application for a promotional process had been screened out because he did not meet the language requirements of the position.  On the same day, the Grievor visited the office of a Career Development and Resourcing Advisor (Advisor) to discuss the circumstances surrounding his application being screened out.  On May 16, 2013, the Grievor contacted the Advisor again to express his impression that he had been treated unfairly in the selection process.  The following day, on May 17, 2013, the Advisor responded to the Grievor reiterating that his application was screened out because he did not meet the linguistic profile of the position.

On June 11, 2013, the Grievor filed a grievance challenging the decision to screen out his application.  According to the information contained in his grievance form, he allegedly learned of the decision on May 17, 2013, the date on which he received the email from the Advisor.  On July 19, 2013, the Respondent requested that the limitation period issue be decided by an Adjudicator.  The Respondent noted that the Grievor allegedly learned of the decision at issue on May 8, 2013, the date on which he read the email informing him for the first time that his application had been screened out of the selection process.  In his submissions, the Grievor took the position that he had delayed filing his grievance because he was awaiting a response from the Advisor.  In his view, it was necessary to have this information before initiating the grievance procedure.

A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the grounds that it had not been filed within the 30-day limitation period set out in paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act.  It was also determined that the circumstances did not call for extending this period. 

The start date for calculating the limitation period is the day on which the member knew or reasonably ought to have known of the decision, act or omission detrimental to him or her.  However, in some cases, the Force may have revised its decision as a result of new information that was not known at the time of the initial decision and that puts the matter in a whole new light.  In this case, the ERC noted that the Grievor was informed that he had been screened out for the first time on May 8, 2013, and that he did not file a grievance at that time.  On the issue of whether the Advisor’s email constituted a new decision, it was determined that it merely reiterated the initial decision contained in the email informing the Grievor that his application had been screened out.  Consequently, the ERC found that the Advisor’s email did not constitute a new decision that puts the matter in a whole new light and therefore that the Grievor did not file his grievance within the 30-day limitation period set out in the Act.  The ERC also found that there were no exceptional circumstances in this case to warrant an extension of the limitation period. 

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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

[Translation]

The Grievor received an email informing him that his application for a position as sergeant had been screened out because he did not meet the language requirements of the position.  He filed a grievance challenging the decision to screen out his application from the promotional process.  The Grievor requested that his application for the position be reinstated or that he be compensated with a promotion to the rank of sergeant.  The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the preliminary issue of the limitation period.  The Commissioner accepted the RCMP External Review Committee’s finding that the limitation period was not met and denied the grievance.