Grievance Case Summary - G-377

The Grievor received an anonymous email from an unattended computer terminal which he found offensive. The Grievor filed a harassment complaint with his Commanding Officer (the Respondent), who ordered the noncommissioned officer (NCO) in charge of the section where the email appeared to have originated to investigate. This NCO had a previous history of discord with the Grievor. The NCO sent an email and interviewed the members of his unit, but did not determine the author of the email. Members were advised the email was considered inappropriate and unprofessional and were instructed to utilize password protection on their computer terminals. The Respondent reported back to the Grievor that he had determined that the email did not constitute harassment and that appropriate action had been taken.

The Grievor filed a grievance complaining about the email and the subsequent investigation.

The Level I Adjudicator found that the Respondent should have appointed an investigator who had no link to the suspect unit, and he should not have appointed someone who had a history of discord with the Grievor. The Level I Adjudicator also found that the email was likely harassment and ordered a new investigation. The Grievor objected to the redress offered, instead seeking financial compensation.

The Committee found that the email in question constituted harassment. The Committee also found that the Respondent did not make an appropriate choice of investigator as the individual chosen was in charge of the unit where the objectionable email was alleged to have originated and there was a history of discord between him and the Grievor. The Committee found that due to the passage of time, a new investigation is not possible and that this is not an appropriate case for compensation.

The Committee recommends to the Commissioner of the RCMP that the grievance be allowed and that he include in his decision a declaration confirming that the Grievor was the recipient of an objectionable email that constituted harassment. The Committee also recommends that the Commissioner confirm that the Respondent erred in his choice of investigator and that he apologize to the Grievor for this procedural error.

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

The Commissioner refused to consider additional submissions made by the Grievor in response to the Committee’s findings and recommendations.

The Commissioner allowed the grievance. He concluded that the email constituted harassment, since a reasonable person would surely find it offensive for someone to hide behind anonymity, to mock the Grievor’s actions in a way that he may believe his competence to be undermined. The Commissioner also concluded that the Respondent failed to take sufficient and appropriate action in response to the Grievor’s allegation of harassment. The Respondent’s designation of a unit manager to investigate the members of that unit was problematic. This investigation should have been assigned instead to an outside party, such as the Complaints and Internal Investigations Services.

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee that a new investigation is not possible due to the passage of time, and that this is not an appropriate case for compensation. The Commissioner presented his apologies to the Grievor and acknowledged that the RCMP did not properly follow the applicable policies to address his harassment complaint.