Grievance Case Summary - G-510

The Grievor complained that the Alleged Harasser (AH) belittled him in front of peers, relieved him of his duties via an invalid transfer, and left him a disturbing message. He also urged that the AH harassed him, and violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by unreasonably delaying a Code of Conduct investigation against him. On behalf of the Commanding Officer, the Respondent considered these allegations from the perspective of a “fully informed employee/manager, similarly situated to the Respondent, who is aware of the Force’s Missions, Vision and Values, the appropriate policy statements and directions on the issue of harassment”. He decided that such a person would not find that the AH’s actions constituted harassment. In his view, the person would see them as managerial decisions taken by the AH, with which the Grievor disagreed.

The Grievor filed a grievance. He partly relied on a key memo which he failed to submit. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance without asking to view the memo. The Grievor tendered a Level II grievance. In so doing, he referred to discussions that took place at the Early Resolution Phase.

The ERC found that it would be improper to scrutinize positions taken at Early Resolution, absent joint consent. Such discussions were intended to be without prejudice. It also found that the Respondent applied the right definition of “harassment”. Moreover, it pointed out that “abuse of authority” is a type of harassment which can comprise a series of ostensibly valid administrative actions.

The ERC noted that the Respondent screened the Grievor’s allegation, and then, without taking any further action, decided that it did not constitute harassment. The ERC found that, in so doing, he erred in two respects. First, he did not have the delegated authority to dispose of the Grievor’s complaint. Second, he failed to use proper procedure and the proper objective test. The ERC observed that if the Grievor’s allegations were established to be true, then they could have fallen within the definition of “harassment”. Therefore, per the relevant authorities, the Force was obligated to further examine the allegations, and the context in which they were raised, before making a final decision as to whether harassment occurred. In addition, the ERC found that, in view of the Commissioner’s Standing Order (Grievances) and prior cases, the Level I Adjudicator should have sought a copy of the key memo, to ensure his decision was as well-grounded as possible. Finally, the ERC observed that the “unreasonable delay” provision of the Charter did not apply to RCMP disciplinary proceedings.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance, because the Respondent made the aggrieved decision without authority to do so, and also, the harassment complaint should not have been rejected at the screening stage. As redress, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner return the complaint to be dealt with according to the applicable policies. If the Commissioner determined that this was not possible because of the significant passage of time, the ERC then recommended that he apologize to the Grievor for the fact that the Grievor's harassment complaint was not dealt with appropriately..

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

The Commissioner allowed the grievance on the basis that the Respondent Human Resources Officer did not have the authority to reject the Grievor's harassment complaint. Pursuant to applicable policy, this authority rested with the Commanding Officer.

The Commissioner noted that his decision to allow the grievance did not mean that he found the conduct to constitute harassment.

The Commissioner stated that while he would normally refer the matter back to the Commanding Officer so that it could be handled according to policy, in this case a significant period of time had elapsed. The Commissioner did not find that anything would be gained from referring the matter back. He noted that an investigation was completed, albeit pursuant to the disciplinary process, during which witnesses were interviewed and documentary evidence was reviewed. A further investigation could not be justified. However, the Commissioner apologized to the Grievor for the fact that his harassment complaint was not dealt with appropriately in accordance with policy.