Grievance Case Summary - G-252

The Grievor is an investigator at a unit where all positions have unilingual French language requirements. The Grievor's supervisor, claiming that his unit needed two bilingual positions, asked that the language requirements of two investigator positions, the Grievor's among them, be modified. The RCMP investigated and concluded that the other investigator's position should be modified, but not the Grievor's. The RCMP also decided to modify the language requirements of the supervisor's position. The Grievor filed a grievance alleging that he had to work in both languages and that he was already bilingual, whereas his supervisor was not. The RCMP indicated that a language designation is given to the position and not to the incumbent. The RCMP added that the unit did not need more than one bilingual investigator position and that the supervisor's position should be bilingual based on his duties.

The Grievance Advisory Board (GAB) recommended the grievance be allowed because the RCMP's decision was not properly justified. However, the Level I adjudicator dismissed the grievance. He believed the RCMP's decision was accurate because it took into consideration the position's needs and not the language skills of its incumbents.

On January 31, 2001, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee concluded that the Grievor did not show knowledge of English to be an essential requirement for the position. The Committee agreed that the RCMP's decision was not well-founded, but considered the decision to be reasonable nonetheless. The Committee reiterated that the language requirement designation of a position is based on the duties related to that position and not on its incumbent's skills. The Committee noted that the RCMP should now ensure that the Grievor will be able to work in French. The Committee recommended dismissing the grievance.

On June 21, 2001, Acting Commissioner G.J. Loeppky has rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the External Review Committee (ERC). He maintained that the member had not demonstrated that knowledge of English was essential in his position to allow him to carry out his duties at [unit]. The Commissioner further noted that a position already existed whose incumbent is required to be able to offer services in both official languages as prescribed in the Official Languages Act.