Grievance Case Summary - G-483

The Grievor made a harassment complaint against her supervisor. The Respondent in this grievance, who was the District Officer, ordered a critical incident review of the complaint. He then decided that the Grievor's complaint was not harassment but rather amounted to a workplace conflict situation. The Grievor objected to the decision and argued that the Respondent referred to her as being over-sensitive and cited work performance issues, rather than discussing all the incidents of the alleged harassment complaint.

The Level I Adjudicator decided that the Grievor lacked standing, as the Respondent did not have the authority to respond to the Grievor's harassment complaint. However the Level I Adjudicator also stated that the Grievor would then be able to send her complaint to the authorized decision-maker.

The authority of the Respondent as the decision-maker in a grievance is not an issue of standing under s. 31(1) of the RCMP Act but rather is a question with respect to the merits of the grievance. The proper course of action for the Level I Adjudicator was to allow the grievance on the basis that the Respondent was the wrong person to make a determination about the harassment complaint and then order the complaint to be dealt with according to the applicable Treasury Board and RCMP policies.

The ERC noted that the process set out in the RCMP policy for the investigation and determination of a harassment complaint was not followed in this case. According to the then RCMP Policy, AM XII.17, the Human Resources Officer (HRO) was responsible for the screening and investigation of the harassment complaint as well as advising the Commanding Officer (CO) of the Division who was the final decision-maker. The Respondent was neither the HRO, nor the CO. The ERC noted that had the Respondent followed the policy, the significant delay would have been reduced, thus minimizing the adverse consequences for the Grievor and the integrity of the process.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be allowed and that the Commissioner of the RCMP ensure that the harassment complaint be dealt with in accordance with Treasury Board and RCMP policies, if it has not already been done so. The ERC also recommended that the Commissioner order that the harassment complaint be deemed to be filed within the one year as required by the policy.

The Commissioner has rendered two decisions in this matter, as summarized by his office:

In a decision dated November 6, 2012, Acting Commissioner Steve Graham made a decision on preliminary and collateral issues involved in this grievance. He agreed with the ERC that all the elements of the standing requirement had been fulfilled. He also agreed with the ERC and found that the record showed that the Respondent was not the correct decision-maker on the Grievor's harassment complaint. Since it appeared from the record that the harassment complaint had been re-submitted to the HRO, the Commissioner requested additional information with respect to the status of this complaint, pursuant to section 15 of the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Grievances), SOR/2003-181.

The Professional Standards and External Review Directorate received the additional documentation requested. Based on this new information, the Commissioner, in a decision dated January 15, 2013, reached the conclusion that the grievance had become moot and denied the grievance.

The additional documentation revealed that following the decision of the Level I Adjudicator –which found that the Respondent had no authority to make the decision grieved and that the Grievor should have filed her complaint with the HRO as required by RCMP AM.XII.17.I.2.a.1– the Grievor re-submitted her harassment complaint to the HRO. The complaint was processed according to policy and the Responsible Officer ("RO") later issued his decision on the harassment complaint. The RO found that the incidents alleged to constitute harassment in the Grievor's complaint fell within the definition of workplace conflict rather than harassment.

Since a second decision about the Grievor's harassment complaint was made by the person authorized to make the decision under the applicable policies, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC Chair that "there is nothing further to be done in relation to this grievance" (ERC report, para. 29). Once the Grievor's complaint of harassment was processed according to policy and fully heard by the appropriate decision-maker, she was no longer aggrieved by the Respondent's decision.

Since the Grievor's harassment complaint was re-submitted, handled correctly pursuant to policy, and decided anew by the RO, the adjudication of her grievance against the Respondent's decision could not have any practical effect on an existing controversy. Hence, the matter had become moot.