Grievance Case Summary - G-420

In January 2003, the Grievor filed a harassment complaint against his manager. On August 4, 2003, the Respondent told the Grievor that he had decided not to launch a Code of Conduct investigation into the complaint, and that he would provide written reasons later. He gave the Grievor his written reasons on September 29, 2003. They stated that an investigation would not be ordered as a full review of all the materials revealed no evidence of harassment.

The Grievor filed a Level I grievance on October 14, 2003. It was denied on the ground that the Grievor had not presented it within the statutory 30-day time limit. In the Adjudicator's view, the time limit began on August 4, 2003, when the Respondent told the Grievor that he would not launch an investigation; not on September 29, 2003, when he gave written reasons.

The Committee found the grievance to be timely. It was reasonable for the Grievor to believe that the 30-day time limit would not start until he had been given written reasons. He also could not be expected to present a grievance until he had been provided with reasons.

The Committee allowed the grievance on the merits. The Respondent did not follow the relevant Treasury Board and RCMP policies when handling the Grievor's complaint. These policies provide that the Delegated Manager cannot make a decision without a harassment investigation unless it is inconceivable that a full investigation would show that harassment had occurred. This was not one of those rare cases. The Respondent read the material the Grievor gave him and decided, on that basis alone, that an investigation was unwarranted. He did not discuss the complaint or its particulars with the alleged harasser, or speak to anyone about the substance of the allegations. The Grievor's allegations could have constituted harassment if supporting evidence was available.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance and apologize to the Grievor for the Force's failure to comply with the applicable policies in handling his complaint. The Committee suggested that the matter not be sent back for a new review, given the passage of time and the fact that the alleged harasser is now retired.

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

Acting Commissioner William Sweeney allowed the grievance.

Acting Commissioner Sweeney agreed with the Committee that the grievance was filed in time. It was reasonable for the Grievor to believe that the 30-day time limit to file a grievance would not start until he had been given written reasons for the Respondent's decision. The Grievor presented his grievance within 30 days of receiving these reasons.

In the interest of time, and given that the parties were given the chance to make submissions on the merits and to provide relevant documents, and that the Committee considered and made recommendations on the merits, Acting Commissioner Sweeney decided to reach a decision on the merits of the grievance himself, rather than return the file to Level I for reconsideration.

Acting Commissioner Sweeney agreed with the Committee that, on the face of the Grievor's complaint (and if supporting evidence was available), the acts described by the Grievor could constitute harassment or abuse of authority. In that case, pursuant to step 5 of the TB policy, the Respondent had to satisfy himself, before deciding not to undertake an investigation, that he had "all the facts. and that the "parties [had] been heard.. Furthermore, pursuant to the AM XII.1.3.b.1., the Respondent had to "ensure all facts have been carefully examined prior to making a determination. Should there be any doubt on whether the complaint is one of harassment or workplace conflict, initiate a Code of Conduct investigation".

In the absence of evidence that the Respondent discussed the substance of the allegations with the Grievor and/or the Respondent, or any other person, Acting Commissioner Sweeney concluded that the parties were not heard, as required by step 5 of the TB policy, and that it was unlikely that the Respondent had "all of the facts". He therefore found that the Respondent erred by not having an investigation conducted prior to reaching his decision on the Grievor's complaint.

Due to the passage of time since the beginning of the grievance process, during which both the alleged harasser and the Grievor retired, Acting Commissioner Sweeney agreed with the Committee that it was no longer appropriate to pursue the harassment complaint process. He presented apologies to the Grievor and acknowledged that the RCMP did not properly follow the applicable policies in the handling of his harassment complaint.