Grievance Case Summary - G-629

The Grievor, a Staff Relations Sub-Representative, had previously filed a grievance against a decision from his supervisor not to approve a claim for overtime for his attendance of a meeting of the RCMP's Legal Fund, which had been held on a Sunday. The Grievor was investigated under Part IV of the RCMP Act because he claimed lieu time off for this trip, which, according to his supervisor, was not eligible for such compensation.

A year later, following the investigation, the Respondent met with the Grievor. The purpose of the meeting was to allow the Grievor to provide the Respondent with any further information before the Respondent made a decision on the nature of the disciplinary action to be taken against the Grievor. During the meeting, the Respondent allegedly indicated that it was intending to take formal disciplinary action against the Grievor.

In this grievance, the Grievor alleges that, during this meeting, the Respondent intimidated him and added to the harassment and abuse of authority he had suffered as a result of the decision to initiate an investigation by threatening to take formal disciplinary action against him for filing his claim. The Grievor also suggested that the Respondent should have put an end to the harassment and intimidation the Grievor had been subjected to by his supervisor since November 22, 2005.

The ERC concluded that it had jurisdiction to review the grievance, that the Grievor had standing and that the grievance was filed within the applicable limitation periods. However, it also found that the additional evidence submitted by the Grievor to the ERC was neither relevant nor admissible.

Regarding the merits of the grievance, the ERC found that the Grievor had not established that he had been the victim of harassment, abuse of authority or reprisals from the Respondent when the Respondent informed him that he was intending to take formal disciplinary action following a disciplinary investigation. The ERC also found that the Grievor had not met his burden of establishing that the Respondent had failed to comply with harassment policies.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

[TRANSLATION]

The Grievor filed a grievance alleging that the Respondent had abused his authority, harassed him and committed an act of reprisal by threatening to take formal disciplinary action against him and also failed to provide a harassment-free workplace. The Respondent admitted that he informed the Grievor that he was intending to recommend formal disciplinary action, but that these were not threats. Furthermore, the Respondent advanced that he had no reason to believe that the Grievor had been a victim of harassment.

The Level I Adjudicator dismissed the merits of the grievance.

The Commissioner accepted the ERC's recommendations. The Grievor did not meet his burden of proving that the Respondent abused his authority, harassed him, committed acts of reprisal or failed to provide a harassment-free workplace. The grievance is denied.