# 2019-076 Harassment, Procedural fairness

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-04-15

The grievor had requested support to engage in an informal conflict resolution process with a supervisor. The grievor considered that the supervisor had behaved in a contemptuous, humiliating and disrespectful manner toward him. The supervisor refused to participate in the conflict resolution process. The grievor's commander (comd) was concerned by the grievor's complaints and ordered an informal investigation, in which the conclusion was that the events did not fall within the definition of harassment.

The grievor contested the findings of the investigation, claiming that it violated the principles of procedural fairness. He claimed that he had not been informed that the comd had ordered the investigation and that the investigator had never met with him to record his version of events. Accordingly, he requested that a formal harassment investigation be conducted, as well as monetary compensation of $25,000.

The Initial Authority (IA) concluded that the comd had not been dealing with an official harassment complaint, and therefore had not been required to comply with the principles of procedural fairness involved in a harassment resolution process. Accordingly, the IA denied the grievance.

During the analysis of the grievance, the Committee was informed that the harassment complaint file had been reopened, and that an assessment of the situation had been properly conducted. The responsible officer determined that the allegations did not meet the criteria for harassment and that a harassment investigation was not required.

The Committee concluded that even though the grievor had not yet filed a harassment complaint, the comd had all the grievor's allegations in his possession and should therefore act as though a formal complaint had been filed, in accordance with the harassment prevention and resolution guidelines. The Committee also concluded that the allegations did meet the criteria for harassment, but that an investigation was not required because the information needed to understand the circumstances had already been gathered during the informal investigation. Finally, the Committee concluded that the grievance process had enabled the grievor to familiarize himself with the information and respond. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority not grant the grievor redress.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation not to afford redress to the grievor. However, the CDS ordered a follow-up with the respondent of the harassment complaint to prevent incidents of this nature from happening again.