Grievance Case Summary - G-431

The Grievor previously filed a harassment complaint against a member of the public service for allegedly refusing to train him in certain tasks. After reviewing documents from related files, the officer responsible for human resources of the region ("Respondent") found that the Grievor's complaint was unfounded. The Grievor was not satisfied with the Respondent's handling of the complaint and filed a grievance. The Grievor claimed that the Respondent failed to conduct an impartial investigation. The Grievor asked for proof of the Respondent's competency to conduct the investigation and disclosure of documents which the Respondent relied upon, as well as records from a series of files dealing with the alleged harasser.

The Respondent, through a representative ("Respondent Representative"), advised the Grievor that a re-examination of the investigation documents supported the Respondent's initial decision. The Respondent Representative stated the decision was based on the outcome of a previous case and that a depersonalized version of this case could be provided. In response, the Grievor stated that the Respondent should have followed the RCMP Administration Manual policy on workplace harassment dealing with members of the public service, and asked an independent party to investigate the harassment complaint.

In a preliminary decision, the Level I Adjudicator decided that it was unnecessary to disclose records about the Respondent's qualifications, as the Grievor stated that he no longer doubted the Respondent's competency. The Level l Adjudicator refused disclosure of the other requested records, having decided they were not pertinent to the grievance. Disclosure was allowed for the depersonalized case upon which the investigation was decided. In his final decision, the Level l Adjudicator decided that the Respondent did not commit an error in the decision and that the Grievor was treated in a just and equitable manner. The Grievor requested a Level II review.

The Committee found that Treasury Board policy on harassment in the workplace required the Respondent to meet with the Grievor upon receipt of the grievance. The Committee found that the Respondent did not meet with the Grievor, and this infringed upon the Grievor's right to procedural fairness, as the Grievor was not provided an opportunity to fully present his point of view. The Committee also found that the Grievor had the right to obtain all records requested in the grievance process - that is under the control of the Force and pertinent and necessary - in compliance with the RCMP Act. The Committee found that as key documents were missing and little information was provided on the file, it was unable to provide recommendations on the merits of the grievance.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance due to the procedural errors found. The Committee also recommended that, as the grievance was based on events that began in 1998, and due to the passage of time, the Force should offer an apology to the Grievor that the Treasury Board policies were not followed.

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

[TRADUCTION]

The Commissioner finds, as does the External Review Committee, that the failure to meet with the Grievor violated the Treasury Board Policy on Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace and infringed upon the Grievor's right to fully present his point of view.

The Commissioner also agrees with the External Review Committee that the Grievor did not obtain all of the records to which he was entitled. However, he did not challenge the partial disclosure at Level I, and it was too late to do so at Level II.

Given the absence of sufficient information and key documents in the file, the Commissioner is unable to provide recommendations on the merits of the grievance. This also means that the Grievor has not discharged his burden of proof in showing that, on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent failed to conduct an impartial investigation. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.