Grievance Case Summary - G-397

The Grievor was the subject of a harassment complaint filed by a subordinate. The Delegated Manager ordered an investigation which concluded the harassment complaint was not substantiated. Nevertheless, the Grievor had a number of concerns about the way in which the harassment investigation had been handled, including a lack of adherence to policy and a failure to protect confidentiality. He filed a grievance within 30 days of being notified of the outcome of the harassment investigation.

The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor had standing but that the grievance failed to respect the time limits found in the Act as the specific acts that the Grievor complained of occurred more than 30 days prior to his filing the grievance.

The Committee found that the Grievor respected the statutory time limit. The subject of the grievance was the Respondent's conduct in the handling of the harassment investigation. Until the investigation was concluded and the outcome known any of the alleged deficiencies in the process could have been corrected.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be allowed and that case be referred back to the parties so that the grievance process can proceed.

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

The Commissioner agrees with the ERC that the Grievor respected the 30-day statutory time limit to file his grievance. It would be unreasonable to have a member grieve each and every policy breach in relation to a single investigation process. Awaiting the outcome of the harassment investigation process before filing a comprehensive grievance pertaining to decisions, acts or omissions in its handling was more appropriate.

The Commissioner also agrees with the ERC that the case should be referred back to Level I so that the grievance process may continue. The parties have yet to complete the Early Resolution Phase of the grievance process, the documents sought by the Grievor have not been disclosed to him, and both parties expressly indicated that they wanted to present submissions on the merits, should the Level I decision on the time limit be overturned. The Commissioner therefore agrees with the ERC that this is not a case in which the merits should be addressed at Level II.