Grievance Case Summary - G-439

Management in an operational section became aware of discontent in the workplace over a five year period. A "Critical Incident Review" ("CIR") was undertaken and all employees were interviewed. The statements obtained were sent to the Department of Justice ("DOJ") for review, and the DOJ identified the Grievor as someone who could have been subject to harassment by two supervisors. A Code of Conduct investigation was ordered, which led to Code of Conduct allegations against the two supervisors. The Respondent found that the allegations had not been established and that no disciplinary action would be taken against the supervisors.

The Grievor presented a grievance, indicating her disagreement with the findings relating to the disgraceful conduct allegations against the supervisors, and referring to the absence of a resolution to the harassment she alleges occurred. The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor did not have standing because the decision at hand had not been made by the right person and according to the appropriate policy. He stated that the matter should be referred back to the Force for processing pursuant to the appropriate policy.

The Committee found that the Grievor had standing. Notwithstanding the Grievor's characterization of the grievance as pertaining to the disgraceful conduct allegations, the actual subject-matter of the grievance was the process used by the Force to deal with allegations of harassment. Whether or not the proper person made the decision, and whether or not the proper policy was followed, are matters that have to be examined in the context of responding to the merits of the matter. The Committee also observed that it was not until the Code of Conduct findings were issued that the Grievor could have known that she was prejudiced by the way the matter had been handled, and the grievance was therefore timely.

Notwithstanding the absence of a written harassment complaint, Management had to comply with Treasury Board ("TB") and Force harassment policy requirements. Where there is no formal written complaint, but managers are nevertheless made aware of alleged harassment occurring, the TB policy may be read as requiring managers to ensure that complaints are indeed put into writing, if complainants wish to go that far, so that the subsequent steps in the TB Policy may be followed. In the present case, it may be that management chose not to encourage potential complainants to file complaints because of the CIR process taking place. In so doing, the result may have been that the harassment policy process was ignored as a way of dealing with the workplace issues.

Although the Force was responsive to alleged harassment by undertaking a CIR and ordering the Code of Conduct investigation, the Respondent's decision only addressed the question of whether the conduct was disgraceful. It did not answer the question of whether the conduct fell within the TB policy definition of harassment. The result is that conduct short of disgraceful, but still amounting to harassment, may have gone unaddressed. The record also failed to show that the Force had assisted the parties involved in resolving the dispute either through early problem resolution discussions or through mediation, another policy requirement.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance and order the Force to consider the Grievor's allegations against the supervisors pursuant to the applicable harassment policy framework.

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

The Commissioner concluded that the Grievor lacked standing to grieve the Respondent's decisions, following Code of Conduct investigations into allegations that the Grievor's two supervisors contravened the Code of Conduct by harassing the Grievor, that the allegations were not substantiated and that no disciplinary action would be taken. The Commissioner further concluded, however, that the scope of the grievance included the manner in which alleged harassment by the supervisors had been handled, and that the Grievor did have standing to grieve in that respect.

Pursuant to the Committee's findings and recommendations, with which the Commissioner agreed, the Commissioner allowed the grievance and directed that the Grievor's allegations of harassment against the supervisors be considered pursuant to the applicable harassment policy framework and that, given the passage of time in this matter, this should be done as expeditiously as possible. The Commissioner also agreed with the Committee that the extent to which the Grievor had the opportunity to complain about the alleged harassment was unclear from the record, and that clarification should be sought from the Grievor to provide an appropriate response pursuant to policy.