Grievance Case Summary - G-378

The member complained that she had been harassed by two supervisors. The Officer in Charge ("OIC"), after having discussed her complaint with the District Commander ("DC") and one of the alleged harassers, advised the member that he had decided not to proceed further with her complaint given that her allegation involved a workplace conflict matter and that there were performance issues on her part. In her grievance, the member argued that her harassment complaint should have been investigated. She listed the OIC and the two alleged harassers as Respondents. The file was sent to the Level I Adjudicator for a ruling on who should be named as Respondent in the file. The Level I Adjudicator dismissed the grievance because he found that the member did not have standing. The member presented the grievance to Level II.

The Committee found that the Level I Adjudicator should not have made the decision on standing without giving the parties the chance to be heard on the issue. However, given that the parties had now had a chance to make representations at Level II, their right to be heard on the issue had been respected. The Committee found that the Level I Adjudicator erred when he decided that the member did not have standing, because the refusal to investigate the complaint had an effect on the member personally. On the merits, the Committee found that both the Treasury Board harassment policy ("TB policy") and the internal Force policy needed to be followed in dealing with the harassment complaint. If there was a contradiction, the TB policy would prevail. In the Committee's view, one section in the Force policy was inconsistent with the TB policy. The fact that a commander/supervisor could decline to initiate an investigation where it was determined that the harassment was not severe was contrary to the TB policy. Any future determination that the member's allegation was related to harassment, and subsequent decision as to whether an investigation should be ordered, ought to be made without consideration of that section in the Force policy.

Further, the Committee found that the OIC and the DC followed none of the preliminary steps as set out in TB and Force policies. As well, they erred in deciding not to initiate an investigation into the member's complaint because the member's allegations, if founded, would constitute harassment and not merely workplace conflict. It appears as though the extent of the OIC or the DC's review of the complaint was to have a discussion with one of the alleged harassers, and on that basis, to decide to not initiate an investigation. This way of proceeding was a violation of the duty to act fairly, in that one of the parties was heard, and the member was not given a chance to present her case. Finally, even if the issue was one of workplace conflict, nothing was done to resolve this issue as required by both policies.

The Committee recommended that the file be returned so that the harassment complaint can be dealt with by a different decision-maker according to the applicable TB and Force policies, and that the Commissioner order that the OIC and DC receive training on proper procedures for dealing with harassment complaints. The Committee also recommended that a decision be made regarding who the appropriate Respondent is on the file before any further action is taken.

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

The Commissioner concurred with the ERC that the subject of the grievance was the Force's refusal to initiate an harassment investigation into the January 22, 2004, incident. The Grievor clearly indicated her wish to withdraw the grievance pertaining to the Performance Logs, but not the one related to the harassment complaint.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Level I Adjudicator erred by not giving the parties the opportunity to be heard on the question of standing before making a decision on this issue, contrary to the RCMP's Policy on Grievances, AM II.38, which requires that parties be given an opportunity to present their positions in writing before a decision is rendered.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Grievor has standing to present her grievance since the refusal to investigate her complaint of harassment could have an effect on her personally.

The Commissioner identified the Grievor's District Commander as the proper respondent to the grievance.

The Commissioner noted that the file does not contain sufficient information to adjudicate the merits: not only have the parties not been heard on the merits, they have yet to complete the Early Resolution Phase of the grievance process. Given these circumstances, and despite the fact that the grievance was filed almost four years and a half ago, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that it was preferable to refer the case back to Level I for adjudication on the merits.