Grievance Case Summary - G-536

The Grievor presented a grievance against the Director General, Occupational Health and Safety, for a denial of her request for reimbursement of dental expenses.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the merits. The Grievor presented the grievance at Level II, and the grievance was referred to the ERC.

According to the record, the grievance involves the interpretation and application of two authorities. One is the RCMP’s Schedule of Dental Services for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the other is the RCMP policy entitled Health Care Entitlements and Benefits Program (chapter XIV.1 - formerly chapter II.18 - of the RCMP Administration Manual).

The types of grievances that may be referred to the ERC are strictly limited to those set out in subsections 36(a) to (e) of the RCMP Regulations, 1988 (SOR/88-361). Subsections 36(b) to (e) refer to specific issues which do not arise in this grievance. Accordingly, the grievance would only be referable to the ERC if it is captured by subsection 36(a), that is, if the grievance relates to “the Force’s interpretation and application of government policies that apply to government departments and that have been made to apply to members.”

In this case, the policies interpreted and applied by the Force are internal RCMP authorities that apply only to Force members. Accordingly, they are not government-wide policies, and therefore the grievance is not referable to the ERC. As a result, the ERC finds that it does not have the legal authority to review this grievance or to make any findings or recommendations.

The grievance is not referable to the ERC, and therefore the ERC does not have the legal authority to review the grievance or to make any findings or recommendations.

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

In a decision dated November 29, 2012, Commissioner Robert W. Paulson agreed with the ERC that the subject-matter of the grievance did not meet the criteria set out at section 36 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988, and therefore the grievance was not referable to the ERC.This also meant that the grievance could be adjudicated at Level II by a designated Level II Adjudicator rather than the Commissioner himself. Accordingly, the Commissioner referred the grievance to a designated Level II Adjudicator for a decision to be reached on the grievance.