C-038 - Conduct Authority Decision

A third-party complaint was made in regards to the Appellant's behaviour toward an employee under his supervision. The Appellant was given a Temporary Reassignment Order to work at a different office for the time being. Shortly thereafter, upon learning of the Order, an employee at the other office indicated that she, too, had experienced comparable treatment by the Appellant three years ago when the Appellant was stationed at that office, and supervising her. The Appellant was Suspended with Pay. This second employee was asked to submit a formal harassment complaint against the Appellant, but she chose not to do so. Two allegations of discreditable conduct were brought against the Appellant pursuant to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct.

Following a Code of Conduct investigation and a conduct meeting, the Conduct Authority issued a written decision where he found that the Appellant abused his position of authority to pressure and coerce two subordinates into engaging in an intimate relationship with him, contrary to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct. The Conduct Authority imposed conduct measures of a temporary demotion, a physical transfer, a direction to work under close supervision for the period of his demotion, a direction to complete an online course and a reprimand.

The Appellant alleges that the Conduct Authority's decision contravened the principles of procedural fairness and was clearly unreasonable. One of his grounds of appeal is that the use of the Code of Conduct process in his case was arbitrary, an attempt to evade the harassment process and an abuse of process. The Appellant also appeals the conduct measures imposed by the Conduct Authority. The Appellant alleges that the Conduct Authority's decision was clearly unreasonable as the conduct measures imposed by the Conduct Authority were too severe and the Conduct Authority inappropriately considered various aggravating factors.

The ERC found that the RCMP followed its own policies and procedures when it processed the allegations using the Code of Conduct process. The ERC also found that the Conduct Authority did not commit a palpable and overriding error that rendered the decision unreasonable.

The ERC applied the three-part process set out in the Conduct Policy and Conduct Measures Guide to analyze the appropriateness of the conduct measures, and found that the conduct measures imposed on the Appellant by the Conduct Authority were not clearly unreasonable and do not require intervention on appeal. The Conduct Authority identified a broad range of conduct measures he would consider imposing in the Notice of Conduct Meeting and decision. The Conduct Authority's identification of both mitigating and aggravating factors in his decision was supported by the record and not influenced by irrelevant considerations. The conduct measures selected by the Conduct Authority reflected the severity of the misconduct and were not a departure from the pattern of discipline identified in either the Guide or in prior similar cases.

The ERC recommended that, pursuant to subsection 45.16(2)(a) of the RCMP Act, the appeal be dismissed and that the findings of the Conduct Authority in respect of the two allegations be confirmed.

The ERC recommended that, pursuant to subsection 45.16(3)(a) of the RCMP Act, the appeal relating to sanctions be dismissed and that the conduct measures imposed by the Conduct Authority be confirmed.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by her office, is as follows:

The Appellant challenges the findings and conduct measures imposed by the Commanding Officer, "X" Division (Respondent), who concluded that two allegations of discreditable conduct contrary to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct were established. The allegations stem from the Appellant's inappropriate behaviour and comments towards two employees working at two different detachments. The Respondent imposed a range of conduct measures comprising: a demotion and an order to work under close supervision for a period of one year, a transfer from his current position and location, an order to complete a harassment course, and a reprimand. The Appellant appeals the Respondent's decision on the grounds that the findings and conduct measures are clearly unreasonable. The ERC recommended the appeal be dismissed. The Adjudicator accepted the ERC recommendation after finding no manifest or determinative errors in the Respondent's decision and dismissed the appeal.