# 2014-107 - Harassment

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–01–13

The grievor submitted a harassment complaint in which he claimed that supervisors included erroneous information in a report for the purpose of damaging his reputation and causing him harm. In addition, he was refused access to his personnel file, which meant that this information could not be corrected in a timely manner. The Responsible Officer declined to conduct a Situational Assessment on the grounds that, since the grievor had filed a grievance in which he put forward the same arguments, the grievance process took precedence over the harassment complaint process.

The Committee had to determine whether the grievor's harassment complaint had been handled in accordance with the policies and directives applicable to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

The Committee noted that, under Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 2017-1, Military Grievance Process, it is now clear that the harassment complaint mechanism takes precedence over the grievance process. Therefore, the Committee concluded that the grievor's harassment complaint had not been handled in accordance with the applicable policies and directives. It noted that the Responsible Officer's error was attributable to inconsistencies between DOAD 2017-1 and the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Guidelines.

Accordingly, the Committee conducted a Situational Assessment and concluded that the grievor's allegations, as stated, did not meet the definition of harassment. The Committee noted that the grievor's supervisors had acted in the normal course of their duties.

Although the Committee concluded that the grievor's allegations did not meet the definition of harassment, it found that removing one specific reference in a report, for lack of evidence, would be justified.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied and that the reference in question be deleted from a report.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–06–30

Case withdrawn at Final Authority level.