Grievance Case Summary - G-367

The Grievor complained of various incidents of harassment and filed a grievance when four of these were not resolved to her satisfaction. She alleged that a member had made harassing comments over the radio. She believed that a dog barking complaint against her was investigated in a humiliating manner. She complained about two incidents at the workplace - a blank job application was put in her mailbox and shortly after a Missing Women's Poster was altered by placing her name on it.

The first two complaints were not reviewed, no investigation was ordered, and no decision was given to the Grievor. In the other two complaints, the Respondent acted appropriately in making sure that all staff were warned that he and the other officers would not tolerate workplace harassment. However, he did not deal with all the aspects of the incidents.

The Committee referenced the Treasury Board policy and guidelines to determine the steps that managers are required to take in dealing with harassment complaints and concluded that the complaints were not dealt with appropriately.

The Committee also noted that when the Respondent declared that the Grievor should face consequences for presenting the grievance, he was expressing a sentiment that was contrary to the employee's right to not be disciplined or penalized for presenting a grievance, and to have allegations of harassment dealt with without fear of retaliation. Also many of the observations made by the Respondent appeared to be more focussed on the Grievor's personality and reputation than on the subject of the grievance.

The Committee also found that since the Respondent had recently been the subject of a harassment complaint by the same Grievor, he should have declined to act as delegated manager for the subsequent harassment complaints.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner that the grievance be allowed. However, given the passage of time, the Committee did not recommend that the Commissioner order that the matter be sent back for the allegations to be dealt with according to policies, but rather recommended that the Commissioner apologize to the Grievor for the fact that her harassment complaints were not properly dealt with.

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

The Commissioner agrees with the ERC's conclusions that besides one incident, the Respondent did not properly follow the Treasury Board and the RCMP harassment policies when addressing the Grievor's complaint. The Level 1 Adjudicator focused on how the different harassment incidents were handled by different individuals, not how the Respondent dealt with the harassment complaints.

As a remedy, the Commissioner decided to not order the matter to be sent back for investigation, given the passage of time. However, the Commissioner presents his apologies to the Grievor and acknowledges that the RCMP did not properly follow the applicable policies to address the harassment complaint.

The Commissioner made additional comments with respect to the issue of apprehension of bias. The Responded and possibly a GAB member should have excused themselves from the current matter in light of their involvement in previous harassment matters. Moreover, the Commissioner agrees with Level I and the ERC that no member should fear retaliation for presenting a grievance.