Articles of Interest

Frontline Perspective writer, Laura Thompson interview with the Chair of the RCMP External Review Committee, published in the Spring 2008 issue.

Q and A - Catherine Ebbs, External Review Committee

Under Review

Ms. Catherine Ebbs has been chairing the RCMP's External Review Committee (ERC) since April 2005. When discipline, discharge, and demotion cases are brought to appeal, and when certain grievances reach Level II, it is her responsibility, with the help of the Committee staff, to provide findings and recommendations to the Commissioner before he makes his decision. The Commissioner must provide reasons if he does not follow her recommendation. During her time with the Committee, Ms. Ebbs has gained an understanding of what works in the organization and what could be improved. As the Brown Task Force prepared its recommendations, Ms. Ebbs, and Committee staff, met with the members of the Task Force. They discussed issues around the RCMP's disciplinary and grievance systems and made some suggestions of their own.

Frontline Perspective writer, Laura Thompson sat down with Ms. Ebbs to discuss her view on the Task Force recommendations, the future of the Committee, and changes in the RCMP.

Did you have an impact on the recommendations put out by the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP?

We were very pleased to meet with the Task Force on two occasions. Myself, and the Executive Director and Senior Counsel of the Committee, Virginia Adamson, attended a very productive meeting with the Task Force and Committee counsel. I also had a chance to meet with them again, informally, before the report came out. We emphasized the importance of the labour relations review function and our concerns around combining that function with the public complaints function. Another item of discussion was the issue of grievance referral. Not all grievances come to the Committee and there can be some confusion in terms of figuring out what grievances come to the Committee and what grievances do not. One of the implied recommendations of the Task Force is that the limitation on referability be eliminated and all grievances go through the same process. All in all, we are quite satisfied that the Task Force considered our recommendations.

Were you happy with their recommendations?

We fully support the Task Force's objective of improving accountability and transparency in the labour relations process. The major area that we think presents a challenge is the Task Force's recommendation that the labour relations review and public complaints functions be put together in one agency. We have looked at that and provided information on how we think that could work in separate agencies with distinct mandates. Although the Task Force recognized the need to build in some separation, we have significant concerns that it would be very difficult to provide enough of a separation, if those two functions were in one agency. In our view, the risks of doing so far outweigh the benefits of separation.

How would two separate functions better serve employees?

The Task Force proposes the creation of the Independent Commission for Complaints and Oversight of the RCMP (ICCOR). But if the labour relations and public complaints functions were both in ICCOR, there could be an appearance of conflict of interest, in some cases. For example, in the case of a public complaint, ICCOR would investigate and they could decide that there was a possibility that the member had acted improperly. If that complaint resulted in discipline being imposed against the member, under the Task Force model, the member would have to go back to an ICCOR-appointed adjudicator for the appeal of the discipline decision. This could create an appearance that the decision had already been made by ICCOR. As well, there might be other issues that potentially create a conflict in scenarios where credibility might be an issue.

It would also be very difficult, practically speaking, to keep the labour relations review function separate from public complaints. The Task Force proposed that independent adjudicators would decide all of the grievance and discipline appeals. But these adjudicators could never be totally separate because they are both appointed by, and paid for, by ICCOR. Also, the adjudicators would need administrative and operational support, which under the Task Force model, would be provided by ICCOR. This would further call into question the adjudicators'independence. In the Committee's view, the labour relations review function operates best in a separate agency.

Are there any advantages to combining Labour Relations and Public Complaints?

The Committee has examined that question and we are not convinced that there would be any advantages. There could be limited advantages, for example, money saved in certain areas, but that would be very small and there might not be any savings, once all the required "firewalls" were created between the labour relations and public complaints functions. We think that the challenges of the ICCOR model outweigh its advantages. We certainly support the Minister and the government in their review of the Task Force recommendations and we are committed to participating in ongoing discussions surrounding the labour relations review function.

What did you think of the Task Force's recommendation to add an Ombudsman function?

People often talk about Ombudsman functions, and it can mean many different things. In many ways, a public complaints agency already performs aspects of such a role in the area of public complaints. On the employment side however, the Committee would see that function as more closely related to the labour relations side of Force operations, than to the public complaints side. An Ombudsman function could allow issues to be examined that could not be raised in the grievance system. It could broaden the range of matters that members could present as concerns. That function could blend quite well with the labour relations function that exists already with the Committee.

The other option that the government could look at, if they decided to look at the Ombudsman function, is to make it separate from both public complaints and labour relations. It would be a significant challenge to have all three functions in one agency.

Are there any other functions that could be beneficial for reviewing labour relations?

We think it would be very useful to bring back the Committee's research function. The Task Force correctly noted that there really is not the capacity to do comprehensive research on the issues that are being raised in grievances or discipline appeals, for example, developing trends or best practices that people could learn from. When the Committee was first created, it did have a research function, but in the early 1990s, there was a considerable cut to our resources and that function was eliminated. The Committee believes that returning that capacity would raise awareness of labour relations issues facing the Force and contribute to the improvement of working conditions within the RCMP.

What aspects of the ICCOR model do you see that are possible?

The Committee is very much in favour of the Task Force recommendation that the labour relations review body have final decision-making power. That is very important in terms of increasing accountability and transparency. We definitely support the recommendation that the limited referability of grievance be eliminated so that all grievors can have access to external review.

What in the ICCOR model could not be carried out?

Given that it is very important for the labour relations review function to be kept separate and distinct from the public complaints function, the Committee does not believe that enough separation could be maintained within a single agency. In addition, there could also be the possibility that, if both functions were in one agency, that agency would be very concentrated, in terms of resources, on the public complaints side. That might give an impression that the labour relations function was secondary or an add-on, which would not reflect reality and not serve the needs of stakeholders. Labour relations review is a very important function and it has to be in a framework where that importance is acknowledged and protected. We think that would best achieved by having separate agencies.

What would the ideal model be for grievances?

We would see the ideal labour relations review agency as being separate and independent of the RCMP and the public complaints body. The external labour relations review body would have final decision-making authority. It would have the resources to handle the workload, which would probably be larger, if the government were to make all grievances eligible for external review. There would also be a possibility of clarifying procedures to ensure fairness, including reviewing the rules for disclosure and the internal process. In addition, the ideal labour relations review agency would have the authority and capacity to provide mediation. We think that this would be very helpful in assisting the parties to arrive at agreement without having the necessity of going to the final decision-making level. This could solve some of the grievances earlier in the process.

What would enhance the internal discipline process?

In terms of discipline, one of the issues that the Task Force looked at was the time limit within which the appropriate officer must initiate the discipline hearing. In our presentations to the Task Force, we highlighted the Committee's experience, specifically, that we find that section 43(8) of the RCMP Act, which establishes the time limit, can be difficult to apply and interpret and can be confusing. For example, determining when that time limit starts is one of the issues that we have seen as difficult to assess. We think that it would be helpful to review the wording of this section with an eye towards making it more understandable and transparent.

In terms of formal discipline, we have noticed that the range of sanctions is limited. When there is a finding that a serious allegation has been established and the adjudication board is deciding on what sanction to impose, they essentially choose between a reprimand, the forfeiture of pay for up to 10 days, an order to resign or dismissal. A broader range of sanctions could provide more flexibility and allow adjudication boards to more easily take into account all of the different factors that influence sanction.

In the ERC's 2006-07 Annual Report, there was an increase in harassment grievances. Why do you think that was?

We thought it was interesting to note because it was something that the Committee has seen in the last two years. However, it is important to put that observation into context. It does not necessarily mean that today there are more harassment grievances within the Force generally. The Committee only sees cases that have not been resolved at Level I and have been brought to the Commissioner for a Level II decision. Also, the Committee is dealing with cases that have made it to Level II, and have been in the process for a while. So, the cases currently before the Committee are not necessarily reflective of how harassment cases are dealt with by the Force today. Generally, there is more recognition of harassment issues and it may be that the mechanisms to complain about harassment are more accessible and understood. In terms of what we have seen in these harassment cases, we would like to emphasize that it is important to have a very transparent process where there is every chance for the parties to try and resolve the issue at the earliest opportunity, where information is shared, and where discussions are open. The more transparent the process, the more opportunities the parties have to reach consensus early. The earlier the matter can be resolved, the better it is for everybody. Where an investigation is required, it is very important for policies to be followed. Also, reasons for decisions must be clear.

What other trends have you seen?

Over the past few years, we have seen an increased concern about delays in the process. In all of the processes - grievance, discipline, discharge and demotion - there are long delays at all levels, including at the Committee stage. We need to find ways to resolve the delay issue, because it is very difficult for parties to have to wait significant amounts of time for a decision to be made. We have been taking steps to resolve this problem.

How did the Task Force Report recognize these?

I think the Brown Report very fairly recognized that the delays in the process were a major concern and their recommendations reflect this. In terms of the Committee's suggestions, we feel that introducing a mediation function might help, in some cases, to reduce the delays and increase the transparency of the process. Also resourcing is a significant issue. Increasing the resource commitment to the labour relations review function would help reduce delays. I think everyone agrees, including the Task Force, that whatever recommendations are put into practice, reducing delays will be utmost in the government's mind.

Do you think that the RCMP can change?

The Committee has had the mandate of external review of labour relations for 20 years. Over those 20 years, the Committee has identified some areas where there has been a requirement for change. In response, the Force has implemented those changes. For example, we have had some cases involving the Force's duty to accommodate members with disabilities. In those cases, we recommended that the Force take a second look at the way they dealt with the duty to accommodate and that review, ultimately, resulted in changes to Force policy. Another example is where the Committee recommended that the right to grieve be recognized for retired members in certain cases, a recommendation that the Commissioner has adopted. So, those are examples of a number of areas where we can see changes being implemented. Both the Minister and the Commissioner have highlighted their commitment to RCMP employees, so I have no doubt that there will be significant efforts to work together towards achieving the changes that are required. The Force, and all of the stakeholders, will be committed to co-operating with the government to realize positive change and improvement for the future.

Facts Box: The External Review Committee's written presentation to the Brown Task Force is available on their website at: http://www.erc-cee.gc.ca/reports-rapports/other-autres.aspx.

Photo cutline: Catherine Ebbs was appointed to the Chair of the RCMP External Review Committee in 2005. She supports the Task Force's recommendations, but thinks that the public complaints and the labour relations review functions will be more effective if kept in separate agencies. Photo by Laura Thompson