# 2021-210 Harassment, Harassment, Situational Assessment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-12-30

The grievor disagreed with the decision of the Responsible Officer (RO) to dismiss his harassment complaint. In his opinion, the respondent's actions towards him constituted harassment. He explained that his chain of command (CoC) had left him to fend for himself in a hostile and unhealthy working environment. Because of this, he had experienced anxiety and stress and no longer had any authority over, or respect from, the other members of his unit. The grievor considered that he had been penalized, not once but twice, for denouncing the respondent's abusive and unjustified behaviour. As redress, he requested formal letters of apology from both the commanding officer of his unit and the respondent. He also sought financial compensation for the harm he had suffered. 

The Initial Authority (IA) acknowledged that the grievor's harassment complaint had not been dealt with appropriately, and decided to conduct a Situational Assessment (SA). Since the grievor had been released from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), the IA found that the grievor's request to re-establish harmonious working relationships was no longer achievable. Hence, the IA informed the grievor that it considered his harassment complaint closed. 

After reading the grievor's allegations, the Committee found that it was obvious that simply reading them should have led the RO to conclude, during his SA, that the allegations met the definition of harassment and, for this reason, the RO should have ordered an investigation into the harassment complaint.  

Finally, the Committee found that the Chief of the Defence Staff had already compensated the grievor for the inconvenience and adverse consequences he had suffered as a result of the inappropriate handling of his complaint, through another grievance that the grievor had filed, and so, unfortunately, any other claim for financial compensation and damages could not be the subject of a request for redress within the grievance process.

In conclusion, the Committee was of the opinion that, given the grievor's release, the respondent's posting outside the CAF, and the passage of time, an investigation into the grievor's harassment complaint would not yield the desired outcome, i.e., the re-establishment of a harmonious working relationship. 

The Committee therefore recommended that the Final Authority not grant the grievor redress.