# 2022-138 Harassment, Harassment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-04-03

The grievor contested the process followed during a harassment investigation which formed the basis for the issue of her Recorded Warning (RW) and for removing her from her position. The grievor raised multiple procedural errors as well as issues with the competency of the investigator. Overall, the grievor believed that the final report lacked clarity and analysis of the evidence while also including numerous conjectures, and presenting opinions as facts. In her view, the investigator did not clearly and accurately demonstrate how all the criteria for harassment were met. The grievor raised these issues with the Responsible Officer (RO) as well as the Harassment Advisor but stated that her concerns were never acknowledged. The grievor also recounted an interaction with the RO where they stated they were not going to review the whole investigation done by the investigator and advised that she could grieve the process. With respect to the RW and her removal from her position, the grievor pointed to a flawed harassment investigation and an incomplete final report. The grievor argued that it was inappropriate and against policy for the RO to request recommendations from the investigator who was unfamiliar with the military, and for the RO to simply follow these recommendations. The grievor believed that she should have been afforded the opportunity to make representations before receiving a RW and disputed whether the decision to remove her from her position met all the conditions prescribed in Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5516-4. As redress, the grievor requested that the harassment process be independently reviewed, the RW be quashed, and that the decision to remove her from her position to be deemed unfair and unwarranted.

In both files, the Initial Authorities determined that the grievor had been treated fairly by her chain of command and in accordance with the relevant policies.

The Committee found that there were several errors in how the harassment process was handled by the RO. During the Committee's inquiries the RO submitted comments which led the Committee to find that the RO failed to review all of the necessary evidence collected by the investigator before making a decision. The Committee found that by relying solely on the investigator's findings and not conducting their own review of the documentary evidence, the RO absconded their duties as final decision maker as laid out in the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Instructions (HPRI), resulting in the investigator becoming the de facto RO. The Committee also found that the RO failed to ensure that the investigator had an adequate understanding of the Canadian Armed Forces and the HPRI, which led to several procedural and administrative errors in the handling of the harassment resolution process. The Committee also found that the final report submitted to and accepted by the RO was severely lacking a clear analysis of how the evidence collected supported the determination that all six criteria for harassment were met. The Committee further noted the lack of adequate record keeping by the grievor's unit and the significant gaps in what was available for the Committee to review. The Committee indicated that the allegations against the grievor were not substantiated by the evidence collected by the investigation, which led the Committee to find that all administrative measures taken against the grievor, including the RW and the decision to remove the grievor from her position, were not based upon reliable evidence.

The Committee recommended to the Final Authority (FA) to afford the grievor redress by quashing the harassment investigations final report in its entirety, by quashing the resulting RW issued to the grievor, and amending the grievor's personnel records as required. The Committee also recommended that the FA find that the grievor's removal from her position lacked reliable justification.