Grievance Case Summary - G-558

The Grievor began an acting appointment in a supervisory position. Shortly thereafter, she took a 12-day leave to deal with some difficult personal issues. One day during that leave period, her superior held an unplanned meeting with the three other supervisors in the office. The objective of that meeting was to re-assign staff, per an Inspector's order. The Respondent phoned the Grievor later on that day to advise her of the proposals made at the meeting. When the Grievor raised concerns, the Respondent arranged a meeting the next day so the Grievor could come into the office, offer input, and help make a final decision. The Grievor agreed to attend the meeting, despite still being on leave. At the meeting, the Grievor said and did a number of questionable things, and later apologized for some of them. Although the Grievor did not like the proposals, she apprehensively supported them. The group agreed to implement the proposals.

The Respondent and other supervisors were upset about the Grievor's purported actions at the meeting. They worried that she would not convey the group's decisions in a positive way. After the Grievor returned from her leave, the Respondent met with her to discuss performance issues. She asked the Grievor if her life was too difficult for her to be an acting supervisor. The Grievor said it was not. She also asked the Grievor how she would message the group's decisions. The Grievor described the decisions as in pejorative terms, and refused to say anything good about them. In time, the Respondent lost faith in the Grievor, lifted her from the acting position, and tried to place her in a position where she could receive mentoring. The Respondent later told the Grievor about a competition for a supervisor job. The Grievor entered the competition and was interviewed, but did not win. She characterized that process as “fair”.

The Grievor grieved her removal from the acting supervisor position, plus certain events leading up to it. She asserted that the Respondent harassed her and committed an abuse of authority.

The ERC addressed several preliminary issues. It then reviewed the relevant harassment test and authorities. It ultimately held that the Grievor did not show on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent engaged in harassment in general, or an abuse of authority in particular. The ERC found that the Respondent's decision to hold the impugned meetings was neither contrary to harassment policy nor inappropriate. It added that the decision to hold those meetings could be equally interpreted as a proper good faith management decision made in the office's best interest. The ERC also reasoned that nothing about the Respondent's discussions with the Grievor were clearly demeaning, belittling, humiliating, intimidating, discriminatory, or of an otherwise harassing nature. It further found that the Respondent lifted the Grievor from the acting position in a way that was professional, and that did not violate harassment authorities. It found no evidence that the Grievor's career was hurt. Rather, it noted that she was screened into a promotional competition and interviewed, and that she later described the process as fair.

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

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

The Commissioner denied the grievance, as recommended by the ERC. The Grievor was removed from an acting supervisor position by the Respondent. The Grievor presented a grievance alleging that the Respondent's actions constituted harassment and an abuse of authority. The Commissioner denied the grievance after finding that the Grievor had not established that the actions constituted either harassment or an abuse of authority.