Grievance Case Summary - G-251

The Grievor had informed his Commanding Officer that he felt harassed by his supervisor, but indicated that he did not want to make a formal harassment complaint; he only wanted the harassment to stop. However, he was informed that the RCMP had an obligation to investigate any complaint, and was therefore asked to substantiate his complaint. The Grievor refused. Accordingly, the Appropriate Officer decided not to investigate and concluded the complaint was unfounded. Five months later, the Grievor, who felt the harassment had not stopped, filed a harassment complaint. He explained that the harassment had started when he had refused to transfer to the new District Office. He indicated that his supervisor had since made several decisions, which he had grieved, in order to force him to accept the transfer. He felt that these decisions amounted to a form of abuse of authority. The Appropriate Officer concluded that the Grievor had failed to demonstrate that the abuse of authority related to a prohibited ground of discrimination covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Appropriate Officer also concluded that the issues raised in the Grievor's complaint had been dealt with, or should have been dealt with, through the grievance process. The Grievor filed a grievance against the refusal to investigate his harassment complaint.

The Level I adjudicator concluded that the Appropriate Officer had correctly refused to carry a formal code of conduct investigation into the complaint. He indicated that the Grievor had failed to establish that he had been the victim of harassment. He finally agreed that the Grievor could not seek redress through the harassment process when the same recourse had been sought through the grievance process.

On January 22, 2001, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee commented the way the Grievor's first complaint was dealt with by the RCMP. The Committee noted that while the Appropriate Officer had indicated the RCMP had an obligation to investigate any complaints, it decided not to investigate. The Committee indicated that while the Grievor had chosen not to substantiate his initial complaint, the Appropriate Officer still had an obligation to investigate the matter and asking for more submissions from the Grievor was not the only means available to do so.

As for the second complaint, the Committee found that the Appropriate Officer used the wrong definition of harassment when he found that the Grievor had failed to show that he had been discriminated against. The Committee noted that Treasury Board policy on harassment specifically identifies "abuse of authority" as a form of harassment. The Committee also found that a determination as to whether the Grievor had been a victim of harassment could not have been made without a proper investigation. The Committee added that an investigation under the harassment policy is independent of a code of conduct investigation because it can lead to different measures. In addition, the Committee noted the differences between the grievance process and the harassment process. It found that while the supervisor's decisions could have been grieved on their merits, it was also opened to the Grievor to complain that in making these decisions, his supervisor intentionally abused her authority and thereby harassed him. The Committee recommended that the grievance be upheld and recommended that a new investigation be conducted into the complaint in order to determine if harassment took place against the Grievor.

On March 6, 2001, the Commissioner rendered a decision in this case. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Level II Adjudicator, Acting Commissioner W.P. Wawryk, agreed with the findings and recommendations of the External Review Committee. The grievance was allowed and a new investigation into the Grievor's harassment complaint was ordered.