Articles of Interest

A clarification with respect to the Committee's mandate to consider grievances

by Philippe Rabot, Chair of the RCMP External Review Committee
September 2001

I wish to raise a concern that will be of particular interest to RCMP Grievance Units, Divisional Staff Relations Representatives who assist members in grievance preparation and RCMP members who are considering filing a grievance at Level II and interested in knowing whether that grievance is referable to the RCMP External Review Committee. There have been a growing number of instances of late where the Committee has received grievances that were ultimately determined to be beyond the scope of the Committee's jurisdiction.

For the most part, the description of referable grievances which is found in s. 36 of the RCMP Regulations appears very straightforward. It includes the stoppage of pay and allowances, the Force's interpretation and application of the Isolated Posts Directive and of the R.C.M.P. Relocation Directive as well as three forms of administrative discharge, including medical grounds. However, one particular category of referable grievances is described in a more convoluted fashion. It consists of grievances relating to "the Force's interpretation and application of government policies that apply to government departments and that have been made to apply to members". For example, this includes grievances relating to the application of the official languages policy or to that of the policy on legal representation. However, a grievance that merely challenges the manner in which the decision-maker interpreted Force policy would not be referable to the Committee on that ground alone. It would only be referable if there is a government-wide directive on the same subject-matter. The lack of information in the grievance record as to whether there is such a directive is the greatest source of difficulty that the Committee faces when trying to ascertain whether a grievance is indeed referable.

Ongoing discussions between the Committee and the RCMP may eventually lead to amendments to s. 36 which would have the benefit of making it easier to ascertain whether a grievance is referable. In the October-December 1999 issue of the Communiqué, I indicated that the Working Group on the Committee's grievance mandate had produced its final report on this very subject. In my opinion, the confusion that currently exists as to when grievances can be referred to the Committee could be resolved by implementing the report's recommendation that s. 36(a) be replaced with a more descriptive list of grievance categories based on specific subject matters.

At present, a preliminary review of each grievance received by the Committee enables a timely determination to be made as to whether there is sufficient information on file to support the Grievance Unit's conclusion that the grievance was referable. If there is any doubt in this regard, the grievance file may be returned to the responsible Grievance Unit without the Committee reviewing the merits of the grievance. I will not agree to review a grievance merely because neither party has raised an objection to its jurisdiction. All of the requirements of the Act have to be met, including the one that the grievance must be part of a category described by s. 36 of the Regulations. An RCMP member who seeks to have a grievance referred to the Committee should therefore ensure that the legal basis for seeking such a referral is clearly mentioned in the Level II grievance presentation.