Grievance Case Summary - G-268

As a result of the investigation into a harassment complaint made against several managers who worked at a detachment which had been temporarily commanded by the Grievor, an allegation surfaced that the Grievor had harassed two members by criticizing them for their actions in front of other members. The investigators did not notify the Grievor of the allegation, nor did they interview him as part of their investigation. Furthermore, they did not interview the two members whom the Grievor was alleged to have harassed.

Nonetheless the investigators determined, in their report, that the allegation had been established and so informed the Grievor's superiors. The Grievor wrote to the investigators to protest that he should have been given an opportunity to be heard and he provided them with his version of events. An apology was provided to the Grievor but the finding of harassment was maintained. Thereafter, the Grievor submitted both a grievance against the investigators' finding as well as a harassment complaint against the investigators. The Force declined to investigate the complaint of harassment on the ground that the issues he was raising could best be addressed through the grievance that he had submitted but it did agree to conduct a review of the investigation which resulted in the investigators' finding being set aside. The refusal to investigate the complaint became itself the subject of a grievance. The Grievor argued that the investigators should reasonably have known that their finding would be unwelcome to him, because they failed to follow the procedure indicated by the applicable harassment policy which required that he be apprised of the allegation against him and be given an opportunity to reply. The grievance was denied at Level I. In his Level II submissions, the Grievor argued that a new investigation was appropriate for the purpose of determining whether the investigators had known all along that the finding of harassment made against him was unsubstantiated.

On July 9, 2002, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. In its findings, the Committee determined that the Grievor was entitled to have his complaint investigated. However, given that it was four years since the investigation report that gave rise to the complaint and two years since the Grievor retired from the Force, there would be no useful purpose to be served by ordering that an investigation now be undertaken. It appears highly unlikely that such an investigation would establish that there was a deliberate intent to harm the Grievor.

The Committee pointed out that the harassment policy has to be interpreted in a manner that will not open the floodgates to complaints from every member who is found, as the result of an investigation, to have harassed another member or employee. Harassment investigators, just as managers, can make mistakes from time to time. Sometimes, reasonable people may wonder whether an investigator did so on purpose because it is hard to imagine how anyone in such a position of responsibility could be that inept. The events described by the Grievor's complaint appear to represent one such example.

The recommendation of the Committee was that the grievance should be dismissed but that the Commissioner should acknowledge that the Grievor was treated unfairly.

On August 14, 2002, the Commissioner rendered his decision, as follows:

The Commissioner accepted the recommendations of the Committee. He dismissed the grievance but acknowledged that the Grievor was treated unfairly and instructed the divisional commander to take action to bring closure with the Grievor.