Grievance Case Summary - G-350

The Grievor was the Manager, Computer Operational Support Services ("OSS"). In 2002, he participated in a consultation process presented to the employees of two sections by four facilitators at the request of the Respondent, who was the officer in charge. During the consultation process, three employees admitted that they were afraid of the Grievor. These concerns were discussed with the Respondent and the Respondent's superior. At the end of the process, the consultation team prepared a report, which was made available to participants and the Respondent. The report contained information regarding the concerns that some employees had about the Grievor. The Respondent discussed the report with the Grievor and offered him a transfer, which the Grievor refused. The Grievor then presented a grievance against the Respondent, claiming the Respondent had harassed and discriminated against him.

The Committee concluded that the Level I Adjudicator had erred in finding that the Grievor did not have standing. The Grievor had standing, because the disputed acts would have had a direct impact on the Grievor. It is not necessary for the Grievor to establish that the allegations have merit in order to have standing. In addition, the Grievor met the time limit set out in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, since he presented his grievance within 30 days of obtaining information through an access to information request. The Committee noted that in order to obtain the information he was entitled to under section 31(4) of the Act, the Grievor is not required to request this information under the Access to Information Act. The Respondent should have sent all the documentation sought by the Grievor that was under the control of the RCMP, and which was relevant and necessary. The Grievor may not have had have had all the information he should have had. That being said, he was not adversely affected, since he had enough information to prepare his grievance.

The Committee found that it was in the parties' interest that the grievance be disposed of as soon as possible; it therefore ruled on the merits of the grievance. A reasonable person would not have found the Respondent's behaviour towards the Grievor to be inappropriate or offensive. The Respondent's actions resulted from the legitimate exercise of authority. In addition, the Respondent met the minimum requirements for the duty to act fairly. However, in the Committee's opinion, there were some problems with the consultation process. Whether or not there was a duty to act fairly, the consultation process would have been more transparent if the Grievor had been given the opportunity to hear about these concerns and comment on them before they were communicated to the superiors and included in the final report. Nevertheless, the Committee was of the opinion that this procedural problem cannot be considered harassment or discrimination.

The grievance should be denied.

The Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

[TRANSLATION] The Commissioner first addressed the issue of standing. The Commissioner noted that although the absence of prejudice is a valid reason for denying a grievance on the merits, it is premature to draw a conclusion on the extent of the prejudice during the admissibility process. In this case, the Grievor had standing since he stated that the disputed decision, act or omission had a direct impact on him, namely, that he had been the victim of harassment and discrimination. As for the time limit, the Commissioner agreed that the Grievor knew about certain aspects of his grievance before June 29, 2002, but that he received additional information in response to his request for documentation. This means that the 30-day time limit only started on June 29, 2002. The time limit was therefore respected.

Although the Level I Adjudicator was never required to rule on the merits of the case, the Commissioner decided to make a decision on the merits himself since there were enough submissions and information in the file. With regard to the Grievor's request for documentation, the Commissioner found that the information requested was not so relevant and necessary to the presentation of the grievance that not having access to these documents adversely affected the Grievor.

Finally, as regards the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner found that the Respondent's acts and omissions against the Grievor did not constitute harassment or discrimination. Not only did the Grievor have to argue that he was the victim of harassment and discrimination, but he also had to prove this claim on the balance of evidence, which he was unable to do.

The Commissioner therefore denied the grievance.