Grievance Case Summary - G-504

The Grievor filed a harassment complaint, which was forwarded to the Respondent. Following a telephone conversation with the Grievor, the Respondent informed her in writing that he would meet with her soon to discuss the matter. The Respondent then met with the subject of the complaint and obtained his version of the facts. Further to this meeting, the Respondent concluded that the Grievor's complaint was unfounded and did not think that it was necessary to interview the Grievor.

The Grievor presented a grievance concerning the Respondent's decision not to meet with her. A Grievance Advisory Board recommended that the grievance be denied. The Level I Adjudicator determined that the Grievor had no standing since the fact that the Respondent did not meet with her did not aggrieve her.

The Grievor presented a Level II grievance in which she requested that additional information be considered.

The Level I Adjudicator was wrong to conclude that the Grievor had no standing. That the Grievor was not given the opportunity to discuss her case with the Respondent before he made a decision aggrieved the Grievor in that it denied her the right to be heard.

The ERC also found that the additional information presented at Level II should not be considered, as the Grievor did not establish its relevance.

Concerning the merits of the grievance, the ERC found that the Respondent did not respect the principle of procedural fairness. By meeting with only the subject of the complaint, he denied the Grievor her right to be fully heard. Furthermore, the Respondent had an obligation to respect the applicable policy, which states that he must hear both parties prior to making a decision concerning a harassment complaint.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that the grievance be allowed and that the Grievor receive an apology for the way her harassment complaint was handled.

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

[TRANSLATION]

The Commissioner allowed the grievance.

Like the ERC, the Commissioner found that the Grievor had standing and that the additional information she presented at Level II should not be considered.

Concerning the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that by not allowing the Grievor to present her point of view, the Respondent did not respect the Treasury Board's Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace, according to which he must make sure that he "has all the facts" and that the parties have been heard before making a decision on the harassment complaint. In doing so, the Respondent failed to comply with a similar obligation in paragraph 1.3.b of the internal RCMP policy on Interpersonal Conflict and Harassment in the Workplace set out in Chapter XI1.1 of the RCMP Administration Manual, which states that he must "ensure all facts have been carefully examined" before making such a decision. Lastly, by depriving the Grievor of her right to be heard, the Respondent did not respect the principle of procedural fairness.

The Commissioner apologized to the Grievor for the way her harassment complaint was handled. The Commissioner also ordered that a new review of the harassment complaint be conducted as soon as possible by the appropriate authority.