The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) cannot be held liable in a grievance brought forward by the Surrey Police Union (SPU), an arbitrator has ruled.
The grievance, filed by the SPU, alleged harassment and unprofessional conduct by RCMP officers against members of the newly formed Surrey Police Service (SPS) in British Columbia. The grievance was filed by the union against the Surrey Police Service.
Arbitrator Andrew Sims noted that the SPU had reached a collective agreement with the Surrey Police Service and obtained certification from the B.C. Labour Relations Board. Sims noted that the RCMP was not a party to this grievance, and determined that “notice ought to be given, at least, to the RCMP.”
The RCMP, after being notified, raised jurisdictional objections. “The RCMP is a stranger to the collective agreement,” it said in a written submission. “Moreover, the RCMP has declined to participate as a party to these proceedings other than in the context of making arguments as pertains to jurisdiction. To be clear, the RCMP does not consent to be bound by decisions rendered by the arbitrator in this matter.”
It pointed out that, unlike a superior court, an arbitrator has “no inherent jurisdiction an no power to award remedies against third parties, who have not voluntarily consented to jurisdiction.”
Background: Surrey switching from RCMP to its own municipal police force
For many years policing in the City of Surrey was arranged through a contract for provincial policing with the RCMP.
Surrey is a growing city with a population of about 700,000. Some time ago, it decided to create its own Municipal Police Force to replace the RCMP contract arrangement. This proved to be controversial, with the Mayor and others vigorously resisting the switch.
The process required approval from the Province’s Attorney General and this too became a matter of controversy, but approval was given, and despite subsequent requests, not withdrawn.
Allegations of harassment
SPU accused RCMP officers of bullying, harassment, and discrimination towards SPS officers working alongside them during the transition period as Surrey shifts from RCMP-provided policing to its own municipal force.
The complaint includes allegations that RCMP officers’ conduct breached their own Code of Conduct and provincial workplace safety regulations.
Sims’ ruling acknowledged the complexity of the issues, highlighting the constitutional boundaries that prevent provincial arbitrators from imposing conditions on federal institutions such as the RCMP. He noted that the RCMP Act grants the Commissioner of the RCMP broad authority over the force’s internal management and that this authority is constitutionally protected from provincial intervention.
No arbitration, but there may be other options
The ruling further stated that while allegations of harassment and unprofessional conduct by individual RCMP officers could not be adjudicated through this arbitration, the conduct might still be actionable through other legal avenues.
“I do not have authority to enforce the RCMP Code of Conduct, or to require those responsible for the administration of the RCMP Code of Conduct to proceed with an investigation or with the imposition of discipline,” the arbitrator said.
Despite these limitations, the ruling does leave room for the Surrey Police Board to take action within its scope of authority — noting it is the respondent in this grievance.
“While the Federal-Provincial Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding, and the Transition Agreement provide no direct arbitral authority, they may be relevant to whether the Employer has acted appropriately or sufficiently to protect its employees from the alleged conduct,” said Sims. “They may also be relevant to the arbitral remedies available to the Union vis-à-vis the Employer and perhaps ‘other persons’ (excluding the RCMP).”
“This arbitration cannot directly impose conditions on a federal workplace. This does not of itself limit whatever remedies that may be available against the Surrey Police Board as the employer of persons assigned to work in that environment,” said Sims.
The grievance detailed various allegations under sections titled “Abuse of Authority,” “Racism,” “Harassment, Intimidation, Threatening Behaviour and Abuse of Authority,” among others, and sought multiple remedies, including declarations that the RCMP and other involved parties breached their duty of care to SPS officers.
Further hearings
Having issued this ruling, Sims said the matter will now be scheduled for a hearing to “address the substantial outstanding matters arising from this grievance.”
He asked the parties to consider whether additional notices should be provided to other affected individuals or entities.
For more information, see Surrey Police Board v Surrey Police Union, 2024 CanLII 53360 (BC LA).
