Grievance Case Summary - G-351

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 officer in charge. During the consultation process, three employees admitted that they were afraid of the Grievor. These concerns were discussed with the Officer In Charge and this officer's superior. At the end of the process, the facilitators prepared a report, which was made available to participants and the officer in charge. The report contained information regarding the concerns that some employees had about the Grievor. The officer in charge discussed the report with the Grievor and offered him a transfer, which the Grievor refused. The Grievor then presented a grievance against the four facilitators (the Respondents), alleging that they encouraged a group of employees to act against the Grievor during the consultation process, with the goal of labeling the Grievor as "a person of unsound mind."

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. 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 Respondents 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 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. The Committee was of the opinion that the Grievor did not prove that the Respondents had discriminated against him. There was nothing in the file to prove that their goal was to use the consultation process to encourage participants to use "hate propaganda against him, thereby facilitating his transfer. In addition, there was nothing in the process itself that would have contributed to this perception. However, in the Committee's opinion, there were some problems with the consultation process. Regardless of 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 problem with the process cannot be considered 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.

Although the Level I Adjudicator was never required to rule on the merits of the case, the Commissioner decided to address the merits of the grievance 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 to the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner found that the Respondents' acts and omissions against the Grievor did not constitute discrimination. Not only did the Grievor have to argue that he was discriminated against, but he also had to provide evidence supporting this claim, which he was unable to do.

The Commissioner therefore denied the grievance.