Grievance Case Summary - G-540

In 2003, the Grievor filed a harassment complaint (HC#1), which was subsequently dismissed. During the HC#1 grievance process, the Grievor learned about certain statements made by other members that he believed were detrimental to his reputation and to his career progression. The Grievor filed three additional harassment complaints in 2005, each against a different member.

The Grievor alleged that one of the people who had conducted the program review (AH#2C) had harassed him by: telling the person investigating HC#1 that the Grievor was paranoid; playing a prominent role in initiating an investigation against the Grievor based on exaggeration of unsubstantiated facts; and, alleging the Grievor had lied, thereby negatively influencing the Grievor’s line officer. The record indicates that this harassment complaint (HC#2C) was not investigated, and that the AH#2C did not provide his version of events. Nonetheless, the Respondent dismissed the HC#2C on the basis that the allegation did not meet the definition of harassment.

The Grievor grieved this decision. The Grievor alleged that the Respondent did not objectively look at all the information and relied on a distortion or absence of fact that was prejudicial. The Office for Coordination of Grievances (OCG) referred the grievance to a Level I Adjudicator for a determination on standing, as it believed the member was trying to re-open HC#1 which was being grieved at the time. The parties were not invited to make submissions on the issue of standing.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that the Grievor did not have standing. He found that the present grievance and the HC#1 grievance referred to the same set of circumstances. At Level II, the Grievor alleged the OCG was biased against him, and insisted the Respondent’s decision was wrong and that the Respondent had erred because he made his decision without having all the facts and that he only addressed one of his allegations. In 2007, the OCG put the present grievance on hold pending a Level I decision on standing regarding a fourth grievance submitted by the Grievor. The fourth grievance also arose pursuant to disclosure of documents related to HC#1.

The ERC found the grievance referable with no time limit issues. The ERC found that the Level I Adjudicator erred in finding the Grievor did not have standing. While both harassment complaints arose out of the same circumstances, they were completely different complaints about two different people. Allegations of harassment against AH#2C were dealt with for the first time in this grievance. The ERC further found it was unfair for the OCG to refer the matter, and for the Level I Adjudicator to rule on the issue, without giving the parties a chance to be heard. The ERC found the OCG conduct did not give rise to an apprehension of bias. The ERC found that the Force failed to meet the harassment policy requirement to seek clarification from the Grievor before deciding whether a complaint falls within the definition of harassment. The ERC found that the Grievor’s allegations of the AH#2C’s actions, when viewed as a whole and assuming them to be true, would fall within the definition of harassment and warrant investigation. The ERC also noted that the Respondent had addressed only one of two allegations. The ERC concluded the Commissioner of the RCMP is not in a position to make a decision on whether the allegations are founded because the proper inquiries were not conducted. Due to the passage of time, the ERC found it is unreasonable to recommend that a new investigation take place. The ERC found the delays in processing the Grievor’s file were not unacceptably long to the point of being an abuse of process.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance and apologize to the Grievor for the Force's failure to properly deal with his harassment complaint.

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 allowed the grievance.

The Commissioner found that the Level I Adjudicator erred in denying the grievance for lack of standing. Contrary to the Level I Adjudicator's findings, there was no other process for redress.

The Commissioner also commented on a number of errors that were made during the processing of the grievance. There was some confusion with respect to the identity of the respondent, which resulted in delayed disclosure on his part. That discrepancy was remedied when the Respondent was provided with the complete grievance package prior to a review at level II. Further, the OCG made certain factual errors in their correspondence to the Respondent; however, these did not raise an apprehension of bias. Lastly, while the parties were not asked for submissions on the issue of standing prior to a decision being rendered on that issue by Level I, this procedural error was rectified by the parties' ability to make submissions at Level II.

On the merits, the Commissioner found that the Force did not handle the Grievor's harassment complaint in accordance with Treasury Board and RCMP policies. Due to the passage of time, the Commissioner found that it would be unreasonable to return the matter for a renewed review. He issued an apology.

The Commissioner also addressed the Grievor's concerns with respect to delays in the grievance process. While it would have been more desirable to resolve the matter as quickly as possible, the Grievor failed to show any prejudice caused by the delay or how the delay tainted the proceedings.