Grievance Case Summary - G-515

Being off-duty sick and shortly returning to work part-time, the Grievor filed a harassment complaint against an alleged harasser for having, during a social event and in her presence, voiced his concerns regarding the Off-Duty Sick and Return to Work programs. 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 alleged harasser had not harassed the Grievor. The HRO then recommended that the Respondent deny the Grievor’s allegation of harassment for this reason. The Respondent did so.

The Grievor filed a grievance against the Respondent’s decision to deny her complaint. The Grievor argued that the decision did not take into account all the details of the incident. She stated that the derogatory comments were directed at her and were offensive. She also argued that the Respondent erred when he refused to participate in the Early Resolution process.

The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor did not have standing as she was not personally aggrieved by the Respondent’s decision to deny her complaint against the alleged harasser. 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 recommendation 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 his duty to act fairly as he 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.

The ERC found that the Respondent had the obligation to initiate and participate in the Early Resolution phase.

On the merits, the ERC found that the alleged harasser comments, although improperly uttered in a public forum, did not meet the definition of harassment set out in policy.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance.

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 Alleged Harasser's initial comments were made by a manager seeking assistance in dealing with a workplace issue. The comments were general in nature and did not identify any individual. While it may have been inappropriate for the Alleged Harasser to discuss internal RCMP personnel issues on a public golf course, the conduct did not meet the definition of harassment set out in the governing policies. The Respondent's decision to deny the harassment complaint was proper and in accordance with the RCMP and Treasury Board policies.