Grievance Case Summary - G-596

The Grievor alleged that his superior dealt with certain concerns of the Grievor inappropriately, asked RCMP Health Services to probe the Grievor's medical status for a dubious reason, and made troubling remarks about the Grievor. The Grievor initiated a harassment complaint against the superior. It contained three allegations. Two RCMP harassment investigators investigated the complaint. They spoke to the parties and witnesses, provided draft reports for the parties' review and input, attempted to allay related concerns and wrote a final report. The Respondent issued a decision in which he reviewed and analysed the complaint. He decided the allegations were unfounded.

The Grievor lodged a grievance. He alleged that the Respondent's decision should be reversed on the bases that it was “[un]informed” and “[un]ethical” and affected the Grievor's health. The Grievor urged that the Respondent improperly described the harassment investigation process, used a “disturbing” objective test, made irreconcilable findings with regard to an allegation, and did not consider if all the allegations as a whole could support a finding of harassment. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. The Adjudicator indicated that he had reviewed the record and authored his decision in one day. He found that the Respondent's decision was consistent with relevant authorities and that the Grievor had not shown otherwise on a balance of probabilities.

The Grievor submitted his grievance at Level II. He repeated many of his positions. He also questioned how the Level I Adjudicator could complete a thorough and fair decision in one day.

The ERC found at the outset that standing and timeliness requirements for the proper submission of the grievance were met.

Turning to the merits, the ERC verified that the Respondent properly described the harassment investigation process as an administrative review in which a decision will be based on a balance of probabilities. The ERC found that the objective test the Respondent adopted was consistent with applicable case law and ensured a broad and informed analysis. The ERC also found that the Respondent did not make irreconcilable findings with regard to an allegation, as the relevant findings at issue were in accordance with harassment policies. Moreover, the ERC found that the Respondent’s failure to consider if all the allegations might cumulatively amount to harassment was not contrary to harassment authorities in this case. There was no identified series of offensive incidents that could properly be reviewed as a whole to consider if they evinced a course of repeated conduct which could constitute harassment. The ERC went on to find that nothing about the Respondent’s decision was obviously uninformed or unethical. There was also no evidence to support the assertion that the Respondent’s decision affected the Grievor’s health. Lastly, the ERC concluded that several factors suggested that the Level I Adjudicator’s review of the facts and completion of a decision in one day was not problematic.

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, the Commanding Officer “[X]” Division, dismissing his harassment complaint against the Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge, Internal Services “[X]” Division. The Commissioner found that the Grievor failed to demonstrate that the Respondent's decision was uninformed and unethical or that it was not rendered in accordance with the requirements of the applicable policy. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC recommendation and denied the grievance.