G-787 - Grievance

The Grievor filed a grievance in which she challenged the RCMP’s refusal to accommodate her family situation. She specified that she asked for, but did not receive, a transfer to a certain type of position near her home, where it would be easier for her to care for her child’s urgent medical needs. The RCMP provided her with that specific accommodation during the Level I grievance process. She then changed the focus of her grievance to what she described as “the RCMP’s negligence” in providing the transfer. She wanted “reparation and damages” as compensation.

A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on its merits, following which the Grievor submitted the grievance at Level II. She conceded that the RCMP had given her the accommodation she asked for, which she described as “suitable”. She now urged that all the accommodation offers she had received leading up to it were objectionable, and that her skills, interests, and abilities had been ignored. She also said that delays during the grievance process were unreasonable, unjust, and unfair. The RCMP referred the grievance to the ERC for an arms-length review.

The ERC found that the grievance could not succeed, for three reasons.

First, delays to the grievance process did not result in an abuse of process. The Grievor did not take issue with significant delays while they were occurring. She instead raised them for the first time after they took place, and there was no possibility of rectifying them. She also offered no evidence to show, and it was otherwise unclear from the record, how the delays she challenged were inordinate or resulted in significant prejudice. In fact, the record suggested that multiple delays to the grievance process had little to do with the officials who administered that process.

Second, the scope of the grievance consisted of the RCMP’s original refusal to give the Grievor a particular accommodation. It did not cover anything that took place after that. The law is clear that a grievor cannot substitute one grievance for another. The Grievor’s new concern with the quality of the RCMP’s accommodation efforts was a different matter that raised different issues which could not have been issues at the time of the grievance. The new concerns also involved alleged actions or inactions of members who were not respondents and who had no chances to be heard.

Lastly, the grievance was moot. Any controversy it initially raised disappeared when the Grievor received her requested accommodation, which she conceded was “suitable”. There was also no compelling reason to hear the grievance. Again, there was no lingering, adversarial situation to address. There was no broader public interest to resolve, given the highly personal and fact-specific nature of the circumstances. Furthermore, because of those things, as well as the lack of any other practical, available remedies, it was not feasible to further entertain the grievance.

The ERC recommends that the grievance be denied.