Grievance Case Summary - G-630

The Grievor filed a harassment complaint against her supervisor (Alleged Harasser) which contained multiple allegations relating to events that occurred between December 2004 and January 2006.

As part of the complaint screening process, certain witnesses were interviewed but, despite her requests, the Grievor was not. The Human Resources Officer (HRO) provided a report (HRO Report) to the Responsible Officer (Respondent #1). It briefly summarized only certain of the Grievor's allegations, the Alleged Harasser's responses to those allegations and relevant witness statements. The HRO concluded that the Grievor's allegations did not meet the definition of harassment. There is no indication in the record that any witness statements or evidentiary documents were referenced in or attached to the HRO Report. Respondent #1 then issued a brief decision stating that, based on the information provided, he agreed with the HRO's conclusion.

The Grievor challenged Respondent #1's decision to screen out her harassment complaint, arguing that it was based on incomplete information and was therefore uninformed and unfounded.

The Early Resolution (ER) Phase lasted more than two years. Although Respondent #1 took certain steps to address some of the Grievor's concerns, no facts or issues were agreed upon. Respondent #1 retired at the end of the ER Phase and the new Commanding Officer became Respondent #2.

The Level I Adjudicator allowed the grievance on the merits. She agreed with the Grievor that Respondent #1's decision was uninformed and that there had been procedural irregularities in the initial review of the harassment complaint. The Level I Adjudicator did not order any corrective action because, in her view, the procedural errors had been rectified by Respondent #1 and Respondent #2. She found that Respondent #1 had become “personally fully engaged” in ER, “had several meetings with the Grievor and her SRR”, had taken extensive steps to reassign the Grievor and had given her a full opportunity to present and argue her case.

At Level II the Grievor contested the Level I Adjudicator's finding that corrective actions had already been taken and requested that her Complaint be examined in its entirety by a new reviewer.

The ERC noted that the test to be applied in determining whether a harassment complaint should be screened out of the process is whether the allegations, if true, appear to be related to harassment. Thus, the decision to screen out a harassment complaint prior to a full investigation should be exercised very carefully. In the ERC's opinion, certain of the Grievor's allegations, if true, appeared to relate to harassment and, therefore, further investigation was necessary before making a definitive decision.

The ERC found that the HRO Report was deficient because it only reviewed certain of the Grievor's allegations and it conflated the initial screening of the Complaint with the next steps of the harassment complaint process: a full investigation followed by a final decision by the Responsible Officer. As a result, the ERC found that the HRO did not properly screen the Complaint or provide a full report and recommendation to the Respondent.

The ERC also found that Respondent #1 failed to review all relevant material, made an uninformed determination and that both Respondent #1 and Respondent #2 failed to apply the correct screening test. As a result, they improperly screened the Grievor's Complaint out the RCMP's harassment complaint process.

Moreover, the ERC found that the steps taken by Respondents #1 and #2 during the complaint process did not constitute adequate corrective actions. Although Respondent #1 took a number of steps intended to cease the harassment of the Grievor, neither Respondent #1 nor Respondent #2 properly screened the Complaint and a full investigation was not undertaken.

However, given the extreme passage of time since the events giving rise to the Complaint, the ERC found that it was no longer possible to screen the Complaint in, conduct an investigation, determine whether any of the Grievor's allegations constituted harassment and if so, decide on appropriate corrective actions.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance on the merits. The ERC also recommended that the Commissioner apologize to the Grievor for the Force's failure to properly deal with her harassment Complaint and for the delays in the grievance process.

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

The Grievor filed a grievance after her harassment complaint had been screened out of the RCMP harassment complaint process. Finding that the Human Resources Officer and Commanding Officer did not apply the proper test at the screening stage, nor were they sufficiently informed, the Commissioner allowed the grievance. The Commissioner accepted the recommendations of the Chair of the RCMP External Review Committee and apologized to the Grievor for the fact that the Grievor's harassment complaint was not handled in accordance with policy.