Grievance Case Summary - G-453

The Grievor worked under the Alleged Harasser for years. They had a strained relationship. By 2003, the Alleged Harasser had transferred elsewhere and the Grievor had become a unit commander. The Alleged Harasser later became involved in a review of the Grievor's unit. The review raised concerns about the Grievor's expenses; concerns that the Grievor believed were baseless. The Grievor was cleared of any wrongdoing. He felt the Alleged Harasser had used the review to try and hurt him. He made a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser.

The Respondent directed an Investigator to address the Grievor's complaint. The Investigator reviewed numerous materials, spoke with several witnesses and then provided a report to the Respondent. The Respondent determined that the Grievor's harassment allegations were unfounded. The Grievor thought that the harassment investigation was deficient, and that it led to a bad decision. He filed a Level I grievance, seeking a full re-examination of his complaint.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He held that the Alleged Harasser did not act improperly while reviewing the Grievor's unit. He also held that the Alleged Harasser did not try to harm the Grievor. However, he failed to address the Grievor's claim that the investigation was deficient and that it led to a bad decision. The Grievor submitted a Level II grievance.

The Committee found that the record raised a perception that the harassment investigation was not fair and neutral, and therefore, that it was inconsistent with Treasury Board and RCMP harassment policy. For example, the Investigator asked leading questions that may have prejudiced the Grievor. He suggested to certain witnesses that the Grievor was paranoid and difficult. He told one witness that the Grievor's harassment complaint was not very compelling. He also reacted to a favourable statement about the Grievor in a troubling way. The Committee found that a reasonably well informed person could reasonably perceive that the Investigator was biased. It also found that because the investigation upon which the Respondent's decision was made did not appear to be done fairly and neutrally, the Respondent's decision was also defective. In view of this, the Committee does not believe that the Commissioner is in a position to comment on the substance of the harassment complaint.

The Committee concluded that, given the passage of time and the fact that some of the evidence dates all the way back to 1989, it would be unreasonable to hold a new investigation.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance and that he apologize to the Grievor for the Force's failure to properly deal with his harassment complaint.

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

In a decision dated November 18, 2011, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the record raised a reasonable apprehension that the investigator may have been biased. As such, the Respondent’s resulting decision was flawed and could not stand.

The Commissioner stated that impartiality and fairness are the cornerstones of a harassment investigation, and it is important that an investigator approach the matter with an open mind.

Due to the significant passage of time, however, the Commissioner stated he could not see how a meaningful investigation could now be conducted. The Commissioner apologized to the Grievor for the Force’s failure to properly deal with his harassment complaint.