Grievance Case Summary - G-616

A Complainant alleged harassment by the Grievor, her former supervisor. One allegation involved a refusal by the Grievor to allow the Complainant's boyfriend, Constable (Cst.) JW, to accompany her on a House Hunting Trip (HHT). There were five other allegations, one of which related to a travel claim for a court appearance refused by the Grievor on the basis that the Complainant had not been subpoenaed. The Complainant insisted that Cst. JW had served her a subpoena. The six allegations contained in the complaint were investigated and nineteen witnesses were interviewed. Cst. JW was not interviewed. The Respondent reviewed the Investigation Report (IR) and found that three allegations, including the HHT refusal and the refusal of the travel claim for court, were established.

In his Level I grievance, the Grievor questioned why only two of the witnesses he proposed had been interviewed. He submitted that Cst. JW should have been interviewed with respect to the HHT refusal allegation and that Staff Sergeant C (S/Sgt. C) should have been interviewed to confirm whether a staff shortage precluded Cst. JW's participation in the HHT. The Grievor also submitted that Cst. JW should have been interviewed regarding whether he had served the Complainant a subpoena. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance.

The ERC found that the Grievor had not demonstrated that the investigation was incomplete because of a failure to interview witnesses. Other than Cst. JW and S/Sgt. C, the Grievor had not identified any such witnesses nor had he indicated how their evidence was crucial or might have materially affected the Respondent's conclusions. In addition, the Grievor had not justified how S/Sgt. C was better placed to describe staff shortages at the time of the HHT than another witness who provided evidence on that issue.

The ERC also found that the Grievor had not established that the omission to interview Cst. JW rendered the investigation inadequate. The Grievor had provided no indication of the way in which evidence of Cst. JW regarding the HHT refusal could have materially affected the Respondent's decision. Further, the Grievor had failed to demonstrate that Cst. JW's evidence was crucial to the issue of whether he served a subpoena to the Complainant. The Respondent's decision identified elements in the Record, including discrepancies between various copies of the subpoena, which indicated the Complainant had been subpoenaed. The Grievor had failed to explain or address this aspect of the Respondent's decision in his grievance submissions.

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:

Three allegations of harassment were founded against the Grievor. The Grievor presented a grievance claiming that the investigators had only interviewed two of his six witnesses and failed to interview his key witness. The Respondent maintained that there was sufficient evidence in the investigation report to establish three of the six allegations, and that information provided by the key witness would not have materially changed the findings. Level I denied the grievance. The Commissioner accepted the ERC recommendation to deny the grievance.