Grievance Case Summary - G-595

The Grievor's superior helped a member of the public formulate a public complaint against the Grievor. The superior also allegedly made questionable statements to and about the Grievor. The Grievor subsequently presented a harassment complaint against the superior. Two RCMP harassment investigators were assigned to investigate that harassment complaint. They spoke with the parties and witnesses, circulated multiple draft reports for the parties' review and input, attempted to allay the parties' related concerns, and prepared a final report for the Respondent. Ultimately, the Respondent determined that all of the Grievor's harassment allegations were unfounded. In his decision, he reviewed the harassment investigation process, noted that he was relying upon the Force's Grievance Policy, reproduced the definition of “harassment” contained in that policy, summarized the most salient points of the final investigative report, and provided an analysis.

The Grievor filed a grievance. He urged that the Respondent's decision was “[un]informed” and “[un]ethical” and that it ought to be reversed. The Grievor did not present any submissions or arguments in support of that position, despite being prompted to do so. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on its merits. He found that the Respondent's decision was “supported by a rationale which is reasonable, defensible and holds up under scrutiny”. The Adjudicator also concluded that the “basis for this grievance is simply that the [Grievor] continues to feel justified in his belief that he was harassed and he disagrees with the [Respondent's] conclusions”. The Grievor resubmitted his grievance at Level II. Again, he did not file any supporting submissions or arguments, despite being invited to do so. He attempted to rely upon a magazine article that raised some 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 found that the grievance could not succeed because the Grievor failed to meet his burden of persuasion. The Grievor provided no submissions or arguments in support of his claim that the Respondent’s decision was uninformed and unethical. The Grievor also failed to explain why he disagreed with the Level I decision. Although the record contained several documents from the harassment investigation file, the documents did not indicate that the Respondent’s decision was obviously uninformed or unethical. It would be inappropriate to infer examples of such impropriety from the record, as such an approach would be speculative and without evidentiary foundation. This would be procedurally unfair to the Respondent.

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

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 against a superior. The Commissioner found that the Grievor failed to demonstrate that the Respondent's decision was uninformed and unethical. The Commissioner also accepted the ERC findings that standing and timeliness requirements were met and that the magazine article was irrelevant and inadmissible as it bore no appreciable link to the Respondent's decision. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC recommendation and denied the grievance.