Grievance Case Summary - G-428

The Force reassigned a bilingual requirement to a supervisory Customs and Excise position that was located in Eastern Canada ("position"). It then sought applications for the position. The Grievor applied for the position even though he knew that he did not meet its language profile. The Force later informed him that he was excluded from the competition for that reason.

The Grievor filed a Level I grievance. He argued that the Force denied him an opportunity to compete for the position by making it bilingual. In his view, this was an unsuitable designation as the position was in a unilingual area. He also claimed that the Force did not properly justify the language profile at issue, and that it assigned language profiles in a biased way.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He held that the Force developed the language profile for the position well before it posted the job opportunity that was the subject of this grievance, and that it properly justified its decision to make the position bilingual. He also concluded that he did not have jurisdiction to address the Grievor's complaints about language profiles that the Force assigned to other positions. He further held that the Grievor's examples of alleged violations in other cases did not justify changing the language profile in question.

The Committee found that the Force provided sufficient information to establish its reasons for making the position bilingual. Specifically, the Force reviewed, assigned and explained its rationale for doing so in accordance with official languages policy.

The Committee also found that the Force's justification for assigning a bilingual profile to the position was reasonable and valid. The Force identified a language requirement that reflected operational needs and that related objectively to the work required. In so doing, it complied with the Official Languages Act as well as with other official languages authorities.

Lastly, the Committee found that the Grievor did not show that the language requirement was otherwise improper. Although the position was in a unilingual area, its duties extended to other regions that were bilingual and Francophone. Moreover, Force decisions made about other positions could have involved the consideration of unrelated issues.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he deny the grievance.

The Commissioner has rendered a decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

In a decision dated April 17, 2011, the Commissioner found that the grievance was not premature. Having regard to the Job Opportunity Bulletin which informed potential applicants not to apply if they did not meet the job requirements, it is clear that the Grievor was personally aggrieved by being denied an opportunity to compete due to the fact that he did not meet the language profile. The fact that the Grievor nevertheless submitted an application does not change the fact that he was personally aggrieved by this statement.

On the merits, the Commissioner found that the rationale for the language requirement of Bilingual BBB/BBB Priority I for the position was appropriate and set in a fair and unbiased manner. The Grievor failed to establish that the linguistic profile of the position was improper, unreasonable or had no rational connection to the duties of the job. The Commissioner therefore agreed with the ERC's recommendation and denied the grievance.