Grievance Case Summary - G-326

An employee reporting to the Grievor complained that she harassed him by making statements he interpreted as threats. This complaint was the subject of an RCMP Code of Conduct investigation. The investigation results were communicated to the Commanding Officer of the division, who concluded that the complaint was founded. He then issued a warning to the Grievor, which is a simple disciplinary measure. The Grievor appealed this measure. The appeal was granted and the disciplinary measure was cancelled on the grounds that the investigation was not conducted properly. The adjudicator who heard the appeal also stated that he recognized the kernel of truth in the Grievor's claim that the Respondent had instigated the harassment complaint. The Grievor then presented a grievance against the Respondent on the grounds that encouraging an employee to complain about her was a form of harassment. The Level I adjudicator ruled that the grievance was inadmissible because the Grievor should have filed a harassment complaint and not a grievance. At Level II, the Grievor argued that she had also filed a harassment complaint, shortly after filing the grievance, but that the RCMP refused to investigate this complaint.

The possibility of filing a complaint that would have led to an investigation did not prevent the Grievor from using the grievance process to address the same issue. It would have been different if the harassment policy derived from an act, regulation or Commissioner's Directive, as stipulated in the Act.

The Level I grievance was however presented late. The Grievor was required to act within 30 days of learning what the Respondent had done. Yet she was aware of this long before the appeal decision was made on the disciplinary measure since she had raised this issue herself.

Her claim that the decision confirmed her long-held suspicions does not stand up.

That being said, even if the grievance had been filed within the time limit, the Grievor did not demonstrate that the encouragement to file a harassment complaint against her was harmful to her and unseemly. On the face of it, there is nothing unusual about a manager informing an employee of the procedure to be followed to have an investigation conducted into comments the employee considers threatening.

The grievance should be dismissed.

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendation of the Committee and denied the grievance.