Grievance Case Summary - G-570

The Grievor provided statements during workplace reviews, managerial reviews and resulting mediations to address a conflict between her and the Respondent. The Grievor was informed that the information she provided would be treated as confidential. The Respondent later filed a harassment complaint against her. In the Grievor's view, that complaint was made in bad faith, partly because it contained information she had provided during the reviews and mediations. The Grievor commenced a grievance. On her grievance form, she stated that she was grieving the “decision to initiate a harassment investigation”. The Office for the Coordination of Grievances advised the parties that the file would be forwarded to a Level I Adjudicator for a decision on the preliminary issue of standing. The Grievor submitted that the harassment complaint was unfounded. The Respondent replied that the Grievor did not have standing as the harassment complaint had not yet been decided.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. She concluded that the Grievor did not establish that she had standing. She found that, despite what the Grievor had written on the grievance form, the grievance clearly pertained to the Respondent's act of filing a harassment complaint. The Level I Adjudicator observed that, in order for the standing requirement to be satisfied, a grievance must pertain to a decision, act or omission that was made in the administration of the Force's affairs. In her opinion, the Respondent had presented the harassment complaint on his own behalf, not in the administration of the Force's affairs. The Grievor later resubmitted her grievance at Level II. She insisted that she had standing as well as “public interest standing”.

The ERC agreed with the Level I Adjudicator that the subject of the grievance was the Respondent's act of presenting a harassment complaint, not the Force's initiation of a harassment investigation. The ERC relied upon jurisprudence indicating that it was sometimes necessary to construe a grievance so that the “real complaint” could be dealt with and concerns giving rise to that complaint could be resolved. The ERC stressed that the Grievor's arguments centred on the Respondent's filing of a harassment complaint. In addition, the Grievor's citing of the Respondent as the responding party (rather than someone who could start a harassment investigation) indicated she was grieving the Respondent's act of filing a harassment complaint.

The ERC also accepted the Level I Adjudicator's finding that the Grievor lacked standing. That finding was consistent with jurisprudence on standing. The test for standing in subsection 31(1) of the RCMP Act contains five prongs, one of which is that a disputed decision, act or omission must occur in the administration of the Force's affairs. The ERC found that this prong was not met. It explained that the Respondent filed a harassment complaint in his private capacity, per his right under Treasury Board and RCMP harassment policies. There was no evidence that this act occurred in the Force's management of its affairs or in the context of the employer-employee relationship for which the Force was responsible. Moreover, the RCMP Act does not provide for public interest standing.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that the grievance be denied.

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

The Grievor presented a grievance against the Respondent, the Acting Non-commissioned Officer in Charge of the Lower Mainland Integrated Police Dog Services, after learning that she was the subject of a harassment complaint filed by the Respondent. The Respondent claimed that the Grievor did not have standing and the Level I agreed. The Commissioner found that the Grievor had not satisfied the test for standing, accepted the ERC recommendation and denied the grievance.