# 2012-123 Harassment

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–12–17

The grievor submitted a harassment complaint which was investigated. The investigators found that despite none of the allegations meeting the criteria for harassment, a high level of both interpersonal and workplace conflict existed between the complainant and the respondent. The report also noted the lapses in leadership in dealing with the situation, however pointed out that the leadership issue had been rectified with the arrival of a new Commanding Officer.

The Responsible Officer (RO) agreed with the investigators' finding that no harassment occurred and acknowledged that there were definitely incidents of poor communication and a lack of professionalism by both the complainant and the respondent. The RO stated that she directed the respondent to undergo professional development related to leadership and communication and highly recommended the same for the grievor.

The grievor objected to the RO decision and disagreed that her complaint did not meet the criteria for harassment. The grievor stated that she was treated with disdain and was unsupported by her chain of command which had a devastating impact on her physically, emotionally and mentally.

The initial authority (IA) questioned the validity of the grievance; he noted that the grievor did not request any actionable redress nor did she provide any clear or compelling arguments which addressed how and why the RO decision was wrong in her view. Notwithstanding that the grievance did not meet the minimum requirements, the IA rendered a decision. The IA stated there was not enough justification provided by the grievor to warrant a review of the harassment investigation and the resulting decision; he was also satisfied that the findings and the resulting decision were made in a procedurally fair and unbiased manner. Finally, the IA found that the RO's direction that the grievor's supervisor undertake professional development was appropriate and effectively addressed the grievor's complaint. He denied the grievance.

The Board noted that in accordance with regulations, it is up to the individual submitting a grievance to describe the decision, act or omission that is the subject of the grievance and to provide evidence in support of his/her claim of having been aggrieved or prejudiced. In the case at hand, the Board pointed out that the investigation or the credentials of the harassment investigators were not questioned; the Board also found no indication that the grievor was arguing that the established process was not followed or that she was not afforded procedural fairness. In the Board's opinion, it appeared that the grievor was simply unsatisfied with the outcome of the harassment investigation and RO decision.

In the Board's view, the evidence on file showed that the RO reviewed and analyzed the allegations before her and determined that a formal investigation was warranted. Upon reviewing the final investigation report, she agreed with that report and concluded that harassment had not occurred. The Board acknowledged and understood that another decision-maker could have reached another decision since given a particular set of facts, reasonable people can reach different and yet sound and logical conclusions; however, in the Board's opinion, it was not for the Board or the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) to substitute their decision for that of the RO unless there was a valid reason to do so.

As supported by the evidence on file, and notwithstanding the grievor's different appreciation of the facts, the Board found that the RO decision fell within the range of possible outcomes and was reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

The Board recommended that the CDS deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–05–23

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.