G-784 - Discrimination

For economic reasons, the RCMP’s laboratory in [Location A] was closed permanently. After the closure, the Grievor’s position no longer existed. The RCMP offered the Grievor a priority placement for an equivalent position at the laboratory in [Location B]. The Grievor asserted that, due to her disability, she required expert medical treatment and supervision that precluded a transfer.

The Respondent determined that the medical treatment the Grievor required would be available in [Location B]. Therefore, the Respondent concluded that the Grievor is not restricted to living in [Location A] on the basis of medical grounds.

In her Level II written submission, the Grievor argued that the Respondent discriminated against her based on her disability, family status, and race, contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act. She further argued that the Respondent’s decision violates the Canada Labour Code, and that he did not consider all the evidence in making his determination. 

Discrimination  

The ERC found that the Grievor did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The Grievor made bald assertions regarding her protected grounds of discrimination, but did not connect them to the Respondent’s decision. There was no evidence of discrimination - subtle or otherwise - in the record.

Canada Labour Code

The ERC found that the record does not support a finding that the Respondent violated the Canada Labour Code in his decision.

The Grievor’s limitations have been accommodated into her substantive position, and the RCMP has accepted all of the workplace accommodations recommended by the Grievor’s health care professionals.

The Evidence

The ERC found that the Respondent considered all of the evidence in making his decision, even evidence provided after his initial determination.

Even with the new information, however, the Respondent maintained that the Grievor’s concerns were social and economical in nature, and did not translate into a medical necessity that she not be transferred.

RCMP Policy

The ERC found that the Grievor has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Respondent’s determination was done contrary to any applicable RCMP policy.

The Respondent had the authority to make the determination and followed the applicable policies in his determination. Moreover, at the time of the determination, RCMP policy stipulated that mobility is a condition of service. It further stated that, in the lateral transfer planning process, although the member’s personal circumstances and aspirations will be considered, the organizational needs of the RCMP take precedence.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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

The Grievor was assigned to a work location in [Location A]. In 2012, the Grievor's work location closed and was moved to [Location B]. The Grievor provided the Respondent with medical information requesting to remain in [Location A] for medical reasons. The Respondent denied the request and found that the medical services the Grievor required were also available in [Location B]. A grievance was presented on this decision. The Grievor then provided additional information to the Respondent seeking a new decision. The Respondent again denied the request and the Grievor presented a second grievance. The grievances were dismissed at Level I in separate deicsions. The Grievor sought a review at Level II, and the cases were referred to the RCMP ERC where upon examination it recommended that the grievances be dismissed. The Commissioner found that the two grievances were substantially similar and issued a single decision in which he found the Repondent's decision was consistent with the relevant law and policy; thus, he dismissed the grievances.