Grievance Case Summary - G-362

The Grievor lodged a harassment complaint stating that he was the victim of harassment and the abuse of power by his immediate supervisor from 1996 to 1998. The Respondent decided not to order an investigation, and also indicated that he had responded to a harassment complaint filed by the supervisor against the Grievor. The Respondent informed the Grievor that he did not have enough information to prove that harassment had occurred. He also noted that transferring the supervisor resolved the workplace conflict, and that there were other ways to settle the dispute. The Grievor responded to the Respondent that the only way to prove that harassment, abuse of power and discrimination by the supervisor did in fact occur was to order an impartial investigation.

Then, the Grievor wrote several times to the Respondent and the harassment officer, asking the Respondent to reply. The Grievor also presented additional information. After more than fourteen months, the Respondent indicated that his decision remained unchanged. The Grievor informed the harassment officer that he was not satisfied with the Respondent's reply, and the harassment officer told him that his only recourse was to present a grievance. The Grievor presented the grievance, requesting an internal investigation, disciplinary measures against the supervisor and a promotion to the rank of sergeant.

In his response to the grievance, the Respondent said that the investigation had been completed based on the documentary evidence and discussions with Health Services and Staffing and Human Resources. He raised the question of time limits for presenting the grievance, pointing out that the Grievor should have known that he had been adversely affected in his first reply. The Grievance Advisory Board and the Level I Adjudicator dismissed the grievance because it was not presented within the time limits.

In a preliminary manner, the Committee found that the time limit should have been calculated using the date of the second decision, but that the Grievor still did not meet the time limits. The Commissioner should therefore extend the time limit retroactively since there were significant delays at all steps of the process.

As for the merits of the grievance, the Committee found that the Respondent violated current policies. The Respondent did not meet with the complainant or anyone else referred to in the complaint. Even if the Respondent had received another grievance concerning the same parties, the Respondent should have initiated a preliminary investigation before deciding not to order a full investigation. The Committee also noted that the talks between the Respondent and some members of Health Services and Staffing and Human Resources were problematic and suggested that the Respondent's decision was based on factors that the parties were not aware of.

The Committee does not recommend a hearing since the events described took place between 1996 and 1999. Instead, it recommends that the RCMP apologize to the Grievor for not complying with the requirements of RCMP and Treasury Board policies in effect when the complaint was presented. The Committee emphasizes that, while it recommends that the grievance be allowed, it is not ruling on the merits of the complaint.

The grievance should be allowed.

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

[TRANSLATION] The Commissioner first addressed the time limit. He agreed that it is the decision of May 17, 2000, that is being addressed by this grievance since, between February 16, 1999, and May 17, 2000, the Grievor communicated several times with the RCMP, asked the Respondent to order an investigation, and presented additional information. The Respondent made a new decision on May 17, 2000, confirming his decision of February 10, 1999.

Although the Grievor did not present his grievance within the 30-day time limit, the Commissioner extended the time limit, thereby continuing with the grievance. 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.

As for the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner stated that the Respondent had been cavalier about the request for an investigation into the harassment claim, which was unacceptable. The comment that there were other ways to settle the dispute related to the incidents raised in the complaint was also problematic since the Grievor was entitled to file a harassment complaint and present a grievance in connection with the same incident. In addition, under current policies, an investigation had to at least be initiated before being able to conclude that a complaint was frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. The Respondent had a duty to obtain more information through an investigation and interviews before deciding that the harassment complaint was unfounded, which he did not do.

In terms of appropriate corrective action, it would be impossible to grant the relief requested by the Grievor. The Commissioner recognized the failure to respect policies in effect in this case and apologized on behalf of the Respondent.