Grievance Case Summary - G-551

A Complainant alleged that the Grievor harassed her by making "inappropriate and unwanted comments to me with sexual overtones". The Respondent initiated a thorough investigation of the allegations. He concluded that although the majority of the complaint was unfounded, one allegation of harassment was established. The Grievor lodged a Level I grievance in which he disputed the Respondent's decision. The Respondent did not advance an argument. Rather, he attached "all materials by which [he] made his decision", in lieu of an argument. The Level I Adjudicator saw this as a silent acceptance of the Grievor's position. She denied the grievance on that basis and overturned the Respondent's decision. She added, rather ambiguously, that "I would like the Grievor to note that my decision is not meant to disregard or condone his behaviour, as documented on file ...".

The Grievor began an email string the day he received the Level I decision. First, he claimed his grievance was upheld on "administrative/technical" bases instead of on the merits. Second, he asserted that he was "not wholly satisfied with [that] outcome". Third, he inquired about his right to grieve at Level II. Fourth, he confirmed that he wished to proceed at Level II. Fifth, he said he would "not be submitting a written submission" despite his right to do so, as he would instead be relying upon "[a]ll data submitted for Level I". The Grievor subsequently emailed the I/C Level I Adjudications to voice his dissatisfaction with the Level I decision, as well as to ask that the paragraph reproduced above be removed from it.

Despite the unusual way in which the Grievor conveyed his concerns at Level II, the ERC found that he met the legal and policy requirements for initiating a timely grievance.

However, the ERC went on to find that because the subject of the grievance was not clear, the Grievor failed to satisfy his burden of persuasion. The ERC observed that little information was provided at Level II. There was no Form 3081, formal presentation, or other properly tendered document containing an ascertainable position. There were only the aforementioned emails, which according to the Grievor, were not submissions. Even if those emails were submissions, they would still be of minimal value. This is so for two reasons. First, they suggested a desire for potentially conflicting actions. Second, the Respondent did not have a chance to review one of them, or speak to either, perhaps because the Case Manager took the Grievor at his word that he would not be filing submissions. The ERC found that the Level I record shed no light on what the Grievor wished to grieve at Level II, as the Level I issues were resolved in his favour.

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

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

The Commissioner agreed with all of the ERC's findings and recommendations. He agreed that the Grievor had not met the burden of persuasion to justify his position that the wording of one of the paragraphs in the Level I decision was inappropriate.