# 2020-114 Harassment, Harassment, Procedural Fairness

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-06-24

The grievor was named as a respondent in a harassment complaint. The ensuing harassment investigation (HI) found that the grievor displayed harassment in the workplace. The grievor contended that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) harassment policy was not followed, that the HI was prejudiced, biased and inconsistent in its findings. There was no Initial Authority (IA) decision, given that the identified IA was involved in the events related to the grievance and directly responsible to the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Upon review of the circumstances giving rise to the harassment complaint, the Committee concluded that the evidence pointed to an unhealthy workplace conflict. The Committee found that, on a balance of probabilities, the grievor may have displayed inappropriate conduct. However, the Committee determined that the evidence did not support a finding of harassment.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority afford redress by removing a letter from the grievor's chain of command accepting the findings of the HI, and replacing it with a letter confirming that harassment did not occur.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) agreed with the Committee's recommendation to partially uphold the grievance. The CDS found that there were apparent breaches of procedural fairness in the harassment investigation and that it was not timely. He explained that the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Instructions states that the CAF requires that the Responsible Officer finalize the decision on a harassment complaint within six months “due to the detrimental effect a complaint has on a unit.” He noted that the investigation alone took 20 months without any exceptional circumstances justifying it. The CDS found that the investigator took too long to contact the grievor which gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The CDS also agreed with the Committee's finding that the final harassment report was not clear regarding which allegations of harassment were deemed to be founded. The CDS agreed with the Committee that one allegation did not amount to harassment but was more consistent with a workplace conflict. He directed that the Responsible Officer's conclusion on this allegation be overturned. The CDS agreed with the Committee's recommendation to quash the recorded warning and remove it from the grievor's file.