Grievance Case Summary - G-594

The Grievor's superior initiated multiple internal investigations into the Grievor. Soon thereafter, the Grievor went off duty sick. The Grievor brought a harassment complaint against the superior. It contained eight allegations. Two RCMP harassment investigators were assigned to investigate the complaint. They spoke to the parties and witnesses, circulated draft reports for the parties' review and input, attempted to allay related concerns and drafted a final report. The Respondent issued a decision in which he reviewed and analysed the harassment complaint. He determined that all of the harassment allegations were unfounded. Yet he stressed that two separate allegations involved significant and unwelcome conduct which had to be addressed.

The Grievor filed a grievance. He asserted that the Respondent's decision should be reversed because it was “[un]informed” and “[un]ethical”. He submitted that the Respondent improperly characterized the harassment investigation process, utilised a “disturbing” objective test, made irreconcilable findings with regard to various allegations, and failed to review disputed conduct in its entirety. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. In his view, the impugned decision was “supported by a rationale which is reasonable, defensible and holds up under scrutiny”.

The Grievor submitted his grievance at Level II. He attempted to rely upon a magazine article that raised very broad concerns with how the Force managed certain funds and services.

The ERC found at the outset that standing and timeliness requirements for the proper submission of the grievance were met. It also found that the magazine article on which the Grievor relied at Level II bore no appreciable link to the Respondent’s decision to deny the Grievor’s harassment complaint. As a result, the article was irrelevant and inadmissible.

Turning to the merits, the ERC verified that the Respondent properly described the harassment investigation process as an administrative review in which a decision is based on a balance of probabilities. The ERC found that the objective test the Respondent used was consistent with applicable case law and ensured a broad and informed analysis. The ERC also found that the Respondent did not make any irreconcilable findings. However, the ERC determined that the Respondent’s decision was not consistent with relevant harassment authorities to the extent that the Respondent failed to apply a principle set out in policy that a series of unwelcome events over time might be indicative of harassment. Although the Respondent found that the Alleged Harasser engaged in two significant and unwelcome actions over time, the Respondent did not turn his mind to the possibility that those actions could have together amounted to harassment.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance. It further recommended that the Commissioner find that the Respondent's decision was not consistent with relevant harassment authorities, quash the Respondent's decision, and apologize to the Grievor for the fact that the Respondent's decision was not consistent with relevant harassment authorities.

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

The Grievor presented a grievance against a decision made by the Respondent who dismissed his harassment complaint. The Commissioner found that the Respondent's failure to consider the Grievor's allegations of harassment all together was not consistent with relevant harassment authorities. The Commissioner accepted the ERC findings and recommendations. The Respondent's decision is quashed and the grievance is allowed.