Grievance Case Summary - G-543

In 2005, the Force removed the Grievor from operational duty in light of his hearing condition. It placed him in a graduated return-to-work program in which he did administrative work he found intolerable. In mid 2006, he was diagnosed with stress and depression, and went on sick leave. The details surrounding his absence led to confusion, and might have stoked the conflict in this case. Specifically, although Health Services green lighted the sick leave, it did so retroactively, years later, for reasons unknown. Moreover, while the Grievor's superior had no issue with the absence, he never formally approved it as he did not realize that this was his job. As a result, none of the Grievor's clinical reports recommending sick leave contained a superior's signature.

The Respondent became the Grievor's return-to-work coordinator. In late 2007, he inquired about the Grievor's status. A Health Services Officer apparently replied that she could not find medical support for the leave. The Respondent then spent months trying to find some support, but was unable to. In early 2008, he encouraged the Grievor's superior to return the Grievor to work, and gave instructions to that end. A doctor soon deemed the Grievor fit to return, and the Force ordered him to do so. The Grievor thought he could stay home. The Respondent agreed to delay the return, pending an informal meeting. Yet he warned that this was a policy violation, and that the Force had power to dock leave and pursue a discharge for abandonment of post.

The Grievor initiated a grievance in which he purported that the Respondent had harassed him. He also made a complaint of harassment. He later retired. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the grounds that: the Grievor lacked standing, parts of the matter were moot, and the case failed on the merits. The Grievor grieved at Level II, reinforcing his positions.

The ERC found that the Grievor met the statutory test for standing, raised live issues, and grieved on time. It noted that the Grievor's harassment complaint was not a subject of the grievance, and that it in no way barred the Grievor from engaging the grievance process.

Turning to the merits, the ERC reviewed the key components of the RCMP and Treasury Board harassment policies. It went on to highlight the objective test for determining if harassment had occurred, namely, whether or not a reasonable observer would conclude that an impugned act satisfied the definition of “harassment”. In applying this test, it found that none of the Grievor's allegations amounted to harassment. The record illustrated that the Respondent carried out his functions as required, based his decisions on the information of health care professionals, gave stakeholders appropriate instructions on their respective functions, and acted without haste or forcefulness in so doing. Moreover, although the Respondent could have been less blunt in his dealings with the Grievor, he expressed his message in ways that were neither rude, degrading, insulting, intimidating, demeaning, or otherwise offensive. He also did not abuse his authority.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he deny the grievance on its merits.

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 Respondent's conduct was not harassing, but rather the proper exercise of his duties.