Grievance Case Summary - G-511

The Grievor’s lawyer requested details about an imminent Code of Conduct investigation into the Grievor. A Commanding Officer (CO) drafted a letter containing facts about the investigation, and the matter on which it was based. The Alleged Harasser (AH) read the letter and signed it for the CO. It was forwarded to the lawyer. The Grievor found the letter offensive. He alleged that the AH harassed him by signing it. On behalf of the CO, the Respondent considered this allegation 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 this person would not find that the letter, or the AH’s signing of it, constituted harassment. In his view, the person would find the letter to be “simply an outline of the position that the CO was taking in relation to this situation”.

The Grievor presented a grievance, which a Level I Adjudicator denied. He then challenged that decision. 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”. It then pointed out that “abuse of authority” is a type of harassment which can comprise a series of ostensibly valid administrative actions. However, the ERC voiced concerns with the Respondent’s depiction of the harassment test. First, it contained too many qualifiers. Second, it was improperly framed as the informed reasonable person evaluating matters strictly from an alleged harasser’s perspective. A Treasury Board Screening Tool indicated that the correct question appeared to be whether an informed reasonable person would find that an impugned activity amounted to harassment.

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. The ERC observed that if the Grievor’s allegations were proven to be true, then they could have fallen within the definition of ‘harassment’. Therefore, per the relevant authorities, the Force had to further examine the allegation, and the context in which it was raised, before making a final decision as to whether harassment occurred.

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. He agreed with the ERC that this may be one of those rare cases where an investigation was not required.

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.