Grievance Case Summary - G-508

The Grievor was a target in several workplace incidents. For example, his car, office, food, and equipment were tampered with. He was repeatedly insulted. Pornography was left in his office. He was also threatened with violence. He did not know who was behind most of the incidents. They continued even though he advised his superiors of them. He became anxious and upset. Eventually, he filed a harassment complaint. Following an investigation in which the Force admittedly neglected requirements of RCMP and Treasury Board harassment policies, the Respondent decided that the incidents did not amount to harassment. He provided three reasons. First, practical jokes had been very common in the Grievor's office and were not directed at any one person. Second, the Grievor could not identify those responsible for the incidents. Third, witnesses said none of the incidents were malicious.

The Grievor grieved the Respondent's decision. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on multiple grounds. His main rationale was that the Grievor failed to submit sufficient information and arguments to meet the burden of persuasion. In the alternative, he held that although the complaint process was problematic, the Grievor had not gone far enough to prove his case. In the further alternative, he held that the Respondent's decision was not prejudicial. The Grievor contests the Level I decision. He asserts that the incidents he complained of met the definition of "harassment" under the relevant policies, that the administration of his complaint was flawed, and that the Respondent's denial of his complaint prejudiced him. He raises, for the first time, materials which he chose to obtain through channels outside of the formal grievance process.

The ERC did not rely on the Grievor's new materials. They could have been requested as part of the Level I process, and were available before the Level I decision was made. The ERC found that the investigation report and the Respondent's decision indicated that the incidents occurred. Moreover, a reasonable observer would conclude that the incidents met the policy definitions of "harassment". The Grievor experienced demeaning, humiliating, and threatening acts which caused him undisputed harm. The record indicated that he advised superiors about the incidents, and of his desire for them to stop. The Force took the Grievor's complaint seriously. There were positive aspects to its investigation. However, it did not follow certain policy provisions, and the Respondent made four key errors in finding that harassment did not occur. First, he failed to apply an objective test. Second, it was irrelevant if others were treated in a similar way. Third, it did not matter if incidents were not intended to be malicious. Fourth, although no alleged harasser was identified, the incidents still represented harassment, and had to be dealt with. The Grievor was clearly prejudiced by the denial of his complaint.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance, acknowledge that the Grievor was subjected to workplace harassment during the period in question, and apologize to the Grievor for the fact that the harassment investigation and decision in his case were inconsistent with applicable harassment policies.

The Grievor withdrew the grievance before the Commissioner had an opportunity to render his decision.