Grievance Case Summary - G-237

The Grievor was an RCMP member posted abroad with the United Nations Civilian Police Corps. She was sent back to Canada a few days following the receipt of two complaints against her by UN foreign officers. The RCMP did not investigate these complaints. According to the RCMP, the reason for returning the member to Canada was her refusal to accept a transfer. The Force maintained that she preferred to leave the mission of her own accord. The member denied having refused the transfer and asserted that she was sent back to Canada against her wishes. According to her, the true reason for her transfer was the complaints against her. Having tried unsuccessfully to clear up the situation, the member then filed a harassment complaint against three members. She alleged that two of the members had used the complaints against her as an excuse to have her repatriated to Canada without ascertaining that the complaints were well founded. She accused the other member of having tried to get her transferred to a different detachment, having threatened her, and having made disparaging remarks about her in front of her peers.

The RCMP refused to investigate the bona fides of her complaint except for the allegation concerning the threats. According to the appropriate officer, there were no "reasonable or probable" grounds for believing that these allegations were well founded. Consequently, the member presented a grievance against the refusal to investigate her complaint of harassment.

The Grievance Advisory Board ("GAB") found that the grievance should be dismissed because the member had failed to show that the decision to send her back to Canada had been made for any reason other than her refusal to accept her transfer and that there were insufficient grounds for investigating the complaint of harassment against the third member. The GAB recommended that the complaints against the member be expunged from her personnel file because they should first have been investigated by the appropriate authorities. The adjudicator concurred in the opinion of the GAB, and dismissed the grievance.

On August 19, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that the refusal to investigate the complaint of harassment was a fundamental error. An investigation was required in accordance with the RCMP's policy on harassment at the time, as well as by the Treasury Board's policy on harassment. In this case, the member's allegations, if true, were likely to reveal that harassment had occurred. An investigation of this nature must be far more thorough than a mere reading of the complaint, which is what occurred in this case. At the very least, the investigating authorities must meet with the complainant and any persons against whom the complaint was made.

For these reasons, the Committee recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance. The ERC did not recommend an investigation at this point because the incidents that gave rise to the complaint had occurred more than four years ago. Instead, the Committee recommended that the RCMP apologize to the member for having failed to conduct an investigation, and admit that there was insufficient evidence to support the complaints made by the foreign UN officers, that the member had been returned to Canada against her will, and that that there was insufficient evidence to establish that she had refused a transfer.

On October 15, 1999, the Acting Commissioner Allen rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner concurred with the findings and recommendations of the External Review Committee. The Commissioner pointed out that an investigation and any opportunity for the grievor to clarify the situation to her satisfaction would be obstructed by the length of time that had elapsed in this case. As for the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method, the Commissioner emphasized its objective and importance and said that the grievor appeared to concur with this alternative. The Commissioner allowed the grievance and ordered the Appropriate Officer for Human Resources in the [Region] to send a letter to the grievor confirming the lack of merit of the complaints filed against her, apologizing for not having conducted an investigation, recognizing that there was insufficient evidence to establish that she had refused a transfer [to the detachment] and admitting that she had been sent back to Canada against her will.