Grievance Case Summary - G-479

The Alleged Harasser purportedly yelled at, intimidated, antagonized, embarrassed, ostracized and ignored the Grievor; threatened her with an unspecified Code of Conduct investigation; and, seconded her against her wishes. The Grievor complained that he had harassed her.

The Respondent's investigation team interviewed 17 witnesses. He decided that the Grievor's allegation was unfounded. The Grievor asked for a full explanation. The Respondent gave her a written opinion prepared by a legally trained third party who the Respondent had engaged in order to "ensure a fair and impartial review based on the best quality assessment available to me". The opinion concluded that the complaint was unsupported because the Grievor and the Respondent gave conflicting, and thus offsetting, statements; only one witness defended the complaint, other than the Grievor and her husband; most witnesses contradicted the Grievor's claims; and, the evidence established a situation that was best described as workplace conflict. The Grievor agreed that the Force had met its duty of ensuring that the decision was explained.

The Grievor filed a grievance. She contended that investigators failed to correctly describe her complaint to witnesses as "abuse of authority". She also urged that they did not ask witnesses about their personal dealings with the Alleged Harasser. She further asserted that investigators lacked proper training and that the Respondent did not consider or understand all the evidence. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He held that the record did not generally support the Grievor's version of events. He also held that the investigation and decision appeared to be honest, fair, complete, substantiated, and untainted by any alleged lack of training. The Grievor brought a Level II grievance.

The ERC observed that nothing in the record revealed that the investigators failed to meet training requirements under policy. It also found that investigators described the Grievor's complaint to witnesses in the exact terms the Grievor used in her letter of complaint. The record showed that the Grievor did not specifically raise the issue of "abuse of authority" until after the inquiry was over. Moreover, the ERC observed that "harassment" is a broad term which includes "abuse of authority", and thus brought it within the scope of the investigation. The ERC also found that the investigators did question witnesses about their interactions with the Alleged Harasser. The ERC concluded that although the investigation and decision-making processes were not perfect, they were sufficient given their comprehensiveness, neutrality and focus on significant issues. It further concluded that even though the Level I decision contained some unnecessary comments, it was sound enough to survive them. This was so because the decision was thorough, and clearly grounded in harassment policy definitions and principles.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance.

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

In a decision dated July 11, 2012, the Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the ERC and denied the grievance.