Grievance Case Summary - G-410-3

In 2001, the relationship between the Grievor and three Detachment Assistants (DAs), SW, CHC and PD, deteriorated to the point that SW and CHC filed harassment complaints against the Grievor. A Code of Conduct investigation was ordered and the complaints were found to be substantiated.

After the Code of Conduct finding, the Grievor filed a harassment complaint against PD. He alleged that PD had harassed him in three ways: by her refusal of any form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), by her statements in the Code of Conduct investigation and by her behaviour towards him.

The Respondent, after reviewing the complaint, PD's rebuttal and the Code of Conduct investigation report, declined to order an investigation.

The Committee found that the officer responsible for responding to a harassment complaint may make a decision without initiating a formal investigation, but this should be done only in the rare cases where it is inconceivable that the full investigation would lead to a conclusion that harassment had occurred.

The Committee found that neither PD's refusal to enter into ADR, nor her statements in the Code of Conduct investigation fall within the definition of harassment. Therefore, the refusal to order an investigation regarding these allegations was justified.

However, the Grievor's allegations about PD's conduct toward him, if proven, might amount to harassment. It was premature and unfair for the Respondent to conclude that no investigation was required as the matter in question had been fully investigated during the Code of Conduct process. The Treasury Board and RCMP policies required that the Respondent meet with the complainant prior to making any determination. Further, absent an investigation, the Grievor should have been given an opportunity to respond to PD's rebuttal.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that the grievance be allowed in part. Due to the passage of time, the Committee did not recommend that an investigation into the harassment complaint be ordered, but recommended that the Grievor be provided with an apology for the Force's failure to follow policy.

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

Acting Commissioner William Sweeney denied the grievance.

Acting Commissioner Sweeney shared the ERC's view that the Respondent failed to respect the policy requirement to meet with the Grievor-Complainant. He also expressed concerns about the fact that the Respondent did not allow the Grievor an opportunity to rebut the DAs' statements, and that the Respondent met with all three DAs at the same time. However, he did not believe that the grievance should be upheld on this basis alone, since these elements did not necessarily affect the outcome of the case. He nonetheless apologized to the Grievor, on behalf of the Force, for the Respondent's failure to meet with him as part of the harassment complaint process, as required by policy.

Acting Commissioner Sweeney deemed it reasonable for the Respondent to review the Code of Conduct investigation report pertaining to the two DAs' complaints, in reaching his decision on the Grievor's harassment complaints. All complaints in this case arose out of precisely the same set of incidents and appeared to represent each party's side of the story. Where two cases are based on the same facts, an extensive prior investigation into that background may be used in the consideration of other claims based on those incidents. In the present case, the investigation was extensive (18 witnesses were interviewed) and reviewed all aspects of the incidents on which the Grievor's complaints against the DAs were also based.

Given the information that the Respondent had at the time of reaching his decision, most especially the prior Code of Conduct investigation documentation, Acting Commissioner Sweeney concluded that this was one of those rare cases where it was inconceivable that an (other) investigation would lead to the conclusion that harassment had occurred. Acting Commissioner Sweeney indicated that in the absence of the information provided by that prior Code of Conduct investigation, he would have been more inclined to conclude that a formal investigation should have taken place, prior to the Respondent reaching a decision on whether the alleged behaviours fell within the definition of harassment. However, considering the extent of the information that was available to the Respondent due to this prior investigation, it is reasonable to believe that he had a complete understanding of the issues and was then at liberty to decide not to undertake an investigation prior to reaching his decision on the complaints.