Articles of Interest

Update: Decision of the Federal Court in Girouard v. Canada
[2005] FC 915

by Martin Griffin, Legal Counsel
July 2005

In 1994, the RCMP created a classification committee to determine whether the merger of administrative services at "A" Division with those at headquarters would have an impact on the position classification of the administrative services officer. The classification committee concluded that the classification was not affected and this decision was grieved by the member occupying the position at that time (the Grievor). The grievance was rejected at Level I and then presented at Level II. The RCMP External Review Committee (the Committee) then recommended that the grievance be allowed but the RCMP Commissioner, acting as the Level II Adjudicator, did not accept this recommendation. The decision was nevertheless overturned by the Federal Court, which ordered a new evaluation in 2001 ( Girouard v. Canada [2001] 201 F.T.R. 219). This evaluation was conducted by a new classification committee, which arrived at the same conclusions as the first committee had seven years earlier. In the meantime, the Grievor retired from the RCMP. He presented a grievance against the second committee's decision, but his grievance was deemed inadmissible at Level I as he was no longer a member of the RCMP.

On May 3, 2004, the Committee recommended that the grievance be allowed (the Committee's findings and recommendations are summarized in the April-June 2004 Communiqué (G-321)). The Committee recognized the classification committee members' expertise. However, they were still required to balance the classification of the Grievor's position with other positions within the Force classified at the same level or a higher level. The explanations provided by the classification committee in support of its evaluation did not, according to the Committee, inspire confidence that it properly understood the essential competencies of the position and how they differ from those required for other RCMP positions. Specifically, the fact that the same position in "E" Division is responsible for managing policing contracts with the province and with municipalities did not in and of itself demonstrate why the abilities required for the "E" Division position would be different from those of the Grievor's position. The same could be said for the fact that "E" Division covers a larger territory. As well, there appeared to be significant differences between the responsibilities attached to the Grievor's position and those attached to the similar "K" Division position, yet it remained unclear why the classification committee was of the view that both positions should be classified at the same level. Finally, in every Division, with the exception of "A" Division, the position similar to the Grievor's was classified at the same level as the Officer in Charge, Administration & Personnel ("OIC A&") . The Committee noted that it would have been useful for the classification committee to explain why, in"A" Division, the OIC A& position had been classified at a higher level than that of the Grievor's position.

The Commissioner, in his Decision dated October 5, 2004, agreed that the Grievor had standing. However, he did not agree with the recommendation of the Committee on the merits. According to the Commissioner, the classification committee's comparison with other positions, including those in "E" and "K" Divisions, was appropriate. The classification committee's expertise warranted that greater weight be given to its conclusion than to the Committee's recommendation.

The Grievor then made an application to Federal Court, asking that the Commissioner's decision be overturned. The application for judicial review was dismissed on June 29th, 2005 (Girouard v. Canada [2005] FC 915).

The Court concluded that the Commissioner's role, as Level II decision-maker in a classification grievance, was limited to reviewing errors of fact or of process, and that this same limitation applied to the Committee when making its findings and recommendations. In the present case, the classification committee had compared the Grievor's position to multiple other similar positions, and the review was much broader than the one made by the first classification committee in 1994. Although a comparison with the "A" Division OIC A& position might have been useful, its absence was insufficient to call into question the entire review. The Commissioner properly deferred to the classification committee's expertise, whereas the Court stated that the Committee went too far by substituting its opinion for that of the classification committee.