Grievance Case Summary - G-499

The Grievor filed a harassment complaint against the acting Commanding Officer (A/CO) for waiting 4 weeks before taking action regarding another harassment complaint that the Grievor had filed. A Human Resources Officer (HRO) measured the details of this allegation against the definition of "harassment" set out in applicable policy. The HRO believed that the A/CO had neither harassed the Grievor nor acted improperly for that matter. The HRO then recommended that the Respondent dismiss the Grievor's allegation of harassment for these reasons. The Respondent did so.

The Grievor filed a grievance against the Respondent's decision to dismiss her complaint. The Grievor argued that the unacceptable delay caused by the A/CO caused her prejudice as witnesses were interviewed 8 weeks after she filed her complaint.

The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor did not have standing as she was not personally aggrieved by the Respondent's decision to dismiss her complaint against the A/CO. Therefore, the Level I Adjudicator did not address the merits and denied the grievance.

The ERC found that the Grievor had standing as she had a personal interest in how the Respondent would deal with her harassment complaint. Rather than refer the file back to the Level I Adjudicator, the ERC proceeded with its recommendations given the passage of time and the fact that both parties had been heard on the issue of standing.

The ERC also found that the Level I Adjudicator breached her duty to act fairly as she did not provide the parties with the opportunity to be heard on the standing issue. The ERC found that the prejudice had been remedied since both parties did address this issue within their Level II submissions.

On the merits, the ERC found that the A/CO's delay in addressing the Grievor's complaint did not meet the definition of harassment set out in policy. It also found that the delay was not unduly long, and that proper action was taken within the time frame set out in the relevant Treasury Board authority.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance. In making the recommendation to deny the grievance, the ERC had concluded that the Level I Adjudicator erred in her conclusion that the Grievor lacked standing. However, it had concluded that the grievance fails on the merits.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC's findings and recommendations and denied the grievance.

The Commissioner found that the Grievor had standing to grieve the Respondent's decision on her harassment complaint. However, the grievance failed on the merits. The conduct about which the Grievor complained (the A/CO's alleged delay in addressing the Grievor's harassment complaint) did not meet the definition of harassment, and therefore the Respondent's decision to dismiss the complaint was consistent with the applicable policies.