C-175 - Conduct (Discipline) Appeals

The Appellant was involved in an on-again, off-again romantic relationship with Ms. [X], a city employee who worked at the same detachment. In 2018, Ms. [X] tried to end the relationship. She repeatedly told the Appellant to stop contacting her. But he continued to make contact attempts, including while she was working. Ms. [X] eventually informed the RCMP that this was affecting her health and ability to work. A superior advised the Appellant not to contact Ms. [X] anymore, but he kept contacting her. Another superior later gave the Appellant a direct order to cease contacting Ms. [X] (Order). Nevertheless, the Appellant continued trying to contact Ms. [X].

The Respondent found that the Appellant had disobeyed a lawful order to stop contacting Ms. [X], in breach of section 3.3 of the RCMP Code of Conduct (Decision). She considered the Order lawful because it was intended to protect an employee’s health and safety, and was aligned with the RCMP’s obligations under section 124 of the Canada Labour Code (CLC). She imposed a loss of two days’ pay, a loss of three days’ annual leave, and a transfer preferably without relocation.

On appeal, the Appellant argued that the Respondent erred in law by finding the Order lawful. He explained that there was insufficient evidence to establish its lawfulness, that the CLC did not authorize such an order, and that the Decision was based in part on a statutory definition that did not yet exist. The Appellant added that his conduct measures were too harsh. In his view, the Respondent failed to properly consider their purpose, relied on improper aggravating factors, overlooked crucial mitigating factors, and chose the transfer on an inappropriate basis.

The Respondent did not err in finding that the Order was lawful. Section 124 of the CLC places a broad obligation on federal employers to protect employee health and safety. This obligation can properly inform the exercise of supervisory authority where a no-contact order is reasonably connected to workplace health and safety concerns. Given the evidence that the Appellant repeatedly contacted Ms. [X] against her wishes, that his conduct affected her health and ability to work, and that earlier management intervention was unfruitful, there was a sufficient legal and factual basis for the Order. The Respondent did refer to a statutory definition not yet in force. But that was an inconsequential error. It could not have affected the outcome.

Furthermore, the conduct measures were not clearly unreasonable. The Respondent properly considered the statutory purposes of conduct measures in general and then selected measures within the normal range identified in the Conduct Measures Guide for disobeying a lawful order. She also relied on appropriate aggravating factors and did not ignore any vital mitigating factors. The transfer struck an effective balance between preventing further breaches of the Order and avoiding the need for relocation. There was no basis for interfering with the conduct measures.

The ERC recommends dismissing the appeal in its entirety.