Edmonton cop hits roadblock in ranks

An officer in the Edmonton police service felt his career had been unfairly thwarted because of past charges that were subsequently dropped — and an arbitrator has agreed.

The Edmonton Police Association filed a grievance against the City of Edmonton and its police service after the officer (whose name was not provided) felt his career had been unfairly prejudiced after sex trade workers had made serious allegations about the conduct of another emergency services officer. Later, charges were brought against the grievor under the Police Act's disciplinary process, but the complainants failed to show up to testify and, as a result, the charges were withdrawn.

According to Edmonton’s police service, regardless of whether the allegations were factual, the officer was transferred from his position to another one in which he would be less likely to give evidence — and thus, less open to challenges concerning his credibility.

"There is a risk that the exploration of the officer’s role or credibility will deflect the trial away from its central purpose towards such collateral issues," the employer explained.

The police officer, alongside his union, disagreed.

By being transferred to another position, the officer felt his career was being "nobbled" and that there was no basis for the move as he was not found guilty of any charges. Further, the union pointed to the grievor’s performance evaluations that were very positive and reflected an officer who clearly wishes to advance through the ranks.

Municipal police officers in Alberta are governed by a number of collective agreements negotiated under the provisions of the Police Officers Collective Bargaining Act, the Police Act, and the Police Service Regulation. Under those documents exists a process by which police officers who are charged with misconduct must follow through, separate from any such criminal proceedings.

As such, the collective agreement permitted the police service to do its due diligence in determining whether the officer would pose a so-called "testimonial risk."

But after sifting through the evidence, arbitrator Andrew Sims determined the police service never effectively assessed the degree of risk to the full extent.

"While I find (that) the service had the contractual ability to protect against risk, it did so in a way that violated the grievor’s collective agreement rights procedurally," Sims said in his decision. "I find that he should have been told, from the outset, of the positions from which he was restricted and any conditions thought necessary to mitigate any risk. It was unreasonable in the circumstances to leave him guessing as to just when he might be accepted."