Grievance Case Summary - G-474

After numerous exchanges in which the Grievor became increasingly upset with a Grievance Administrator (GA), he emailed the following comment to the GA (email):

If you are stubborn, impatient, indifferent or unwilling to impart fair play for both sides, I have little control over that. What is within my power is to show you and your supervisors the errors of your ways and trust that ethics and integrity will cause you to re-evaluate the situation.

The GA initiated a harassment complaint. The Force asked the Respondent to look into it. The Grievor objected to the Respondent's involvement in the matter. He felt that the Respondent was biased in view of the fact that the Respondent had decided against him in prior complaints. The Force dismissed the Grievor's objection. The Respondent reviewed the GA's complaint plus the Grievor's reply to it. He concluded that the Grievor's email amounted to harassment. He sent a memo to the Grievor in which he conveyed his conclusion, referred to the definition of harassment in Force policy, and cautioned the Grievor not to commit any further harassment.

The Grievor filed a grievance. He urged that the Respondent was biased against him, and that he did not commit harassment. A Level I Adjudicator disagreed. The Grievor submitted a Level II grievance. He made similar claims, contested the Level I Adjudicator's integrity, and brought new evidence which he felt further revealed the Respondent's alleged bias. The new evidence was a document implying that the Respondent had a preconceived poor opinion of the Grievor.

The ERC found that the Grievor had misidentified the Level I Adjudicator, so it recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP ignore the criticisms of the Level I Adjudicator's integrity. The ERC held that the Grievor's new evidence was admissible. The record showed that it was relevant, and that the Grievor could not have reasonably known about it at Level I. The ERC determined that the Respondent's actions in the Grievor's prior complaints, coupled with the new evidence, would cause a reasonably informed bystander to reasonably perceive bias on the part of the Respondent. It went on to recommend that the Commissioner rule on the harassment issue in order to provide closure to the parties, given that the complaint was a very narrow one which was already more than six years old. The ERC found that although the Grievor's email was abrupt and inappropriate, it did not meet the definition of harassment. In the ERC's view, a reasonable observer would not have found it to be offensive. However, the ERC determined that the email did amount to workplace conflict, and that it needed to be dealt with. It recommended that the Grievor be ordered to refrain from such further communications.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance, and that he rescind the Respondent's finding of harassment.

The Grievor withdrew his grievance on January 10, 2012 before the Commissioner had an opportunity to render his decision.