Grievance Case Summary - G-352

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. The Respondent was one of the four facilitators. During the consultation process, three employees admitted that they were afraid of the Grievor. These concerns were discussed with the Respondent and her superior. At the end of the process, the consultation team 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 Respondent, alleging that she had not met her commitments as a facilitator and that she had not respected one of the principles of natural justice.

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. However, in this case, it was not necessary for the Grievor to consult additional information, because the facts on which the Grievor's allegations were based had already been established.

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 Respondent had met her commitments as a facilitator. As well, in the context of the consultation process, the Respondent did not have a duty to verify the participants' observations nor a responsibility to give the Grievor the opportunity to respond to the allegations. 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 the Respondent's actions in the legitimate performance of her mandate as a facilitator did not adversely affect the Grievor.

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 stated 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 rule on the merits of the case 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 relevant and necessary for presenting the grievance.

Finally, as to the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner found that the Grievor had to be able to prove that the Respondent's decision, act or omission adversely affected him. In this case, the Respondent only reported the opinions of the participants in the consultation process. The Grievor did not show what role the Respondent played in the prejudice he claims to have suffered. The Commissioner therefore denied the grievance.