# 2012-122 Harassment, Release - Compulsory
Case Summary
F&R Date: 2013–01–30
The grievor filed a harassment complaint against his immediate supervisor, alleging racial harassment, improper conduct and abuse of authority.
The Responsible Officer (RO), also the grievor's Commanding Officer, reviewed the five allegations, conducted a situational assessment (SA) and determined that a harassment investigation was necessary. A Harassment Investigator (HI) was retained, all five allegations were investigated and the investigator concluded that none of the allegations of harassment were founded.
After the RO informed the grievor that no administrative or disciplinary action was necessary since the allegations were unfounded, he submitted a grievance in which he contested the RO's decision, complaining that it was unfair because the evidence supported his claim of harassment and because the RO failed to consider additional comments he had submitted after he had reviewed the draft harassment report.
The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance on the basis that the harassment investigation and the subsequent RO decision were fair and unbiased, were conducted in accordance with existing guidelines, and none of the grievor's allegations of harassment were founded.
The Board acknowledged that there were some errors made in the process, including some delay, but found that these were not fatal to the fairness of the process.
The Board reviewed each of the allegations and observed that the RO did not seem to fully understand the SA process. In accordance with the harassment policy, upon receipt of a complaint, a SA is performed by the RO to determine if the allegation(s) as stated, meet the definition of harassment. If a SA confirms that one or more allegations meet the harassment criteria, the RO must then ensure that an administrative investigation is undertaken and a decision is rendered. However, it is only those allegations that meet the harassment criteria that must be investigated. The Board observed that in this case, had the SA been done correctly, it is possible that one or more of the grievor's allegations would have been deemed not to have met the harassment criteria and an investigation of those allegations would not have been necessary.
The Board also found that the grievor's comments, sent in response to the draft investigation report, were properly considered by the investigator and were reflected in the final report. Finally, the Board found that all relevant evidence was considered, the appropriate witnesses were interviewed, the complainant and the respondent were able to provide their comments and those comments were properly considered by the HI.
The Board was satisfied that the decision of the RO was reasonable and recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2013–06–24
The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.
Page details
- Date modified: