Grievance Case Summary - G-631

The Grievor presented a harassment complaint (Complaint) containing a number of allegations against his superior officer (Alleged Harasser). The Grievor asserted that the Alleged Harasser persistently humiliated him in front of his peers and attempted to build a case for his discharge by singling out, micro-managing and overdocumenting his performance. The Respondent reviewed the harassment complaint to determine if a full investigation was required. In so doing, the Respondent disregarded certain allegations, concentrated on eight allegations he felt were “related to harassment” and evaluated those allegations against criteria set forth in the Treasury Board “Screening Tool for the Delegated Manager and the Harassment Prevention Coordinator”. The Respondent screened the harassment complaint out of the RCMP harassment complaint process, finding that the Alleged Harasser's conduct was either managerial in nature or not otherwise improper.

The Grievor filed a Level I grievance. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on its merits, finding that the Respondent followed the correct process in screening out the harassment complaint. The Grievor submitted his grievance at Level II. He argues that the allegations in his harassment complaint fell within the definition of “harassment” in the RCMP's Harassment Policy and that they should have been investigated.

The ERC confirmed that the preliminary requirements of referability, standing and timeliness had each been met. It then found that the Grievor's original harassment complaint, which the Grievor first included in evidence at Level II, was inadmissible, as that complaint had been reasonably available to the Grievor at Level I. However, despite the inadmissibility of the original complaint, there was sufficient information in the record to permit the Commissioner of the RCMP to make a full and informed decision on the merits of the grievance.

The ERC stated that the test to be applied in deciding whether a harassment complaint ought to be screened out is: assuming that the allegations in a complaint are true, do one or more of the allegations fall within the definition of “harassment”, as set forth in the RCMP's Harassment Policy. In this matter, the Respondent assessed the Grievor's allegations without presuming that each allegation was true. Once the Respondent found that eight of the allegations were “related to harassment”, he should have screened in the complaint and initiated appropriate action, including exploring mediation and determining if an investigation was required. Instead, he screened the Grievor's harassment complaint out on the bases of substantive determinations which should not have been made without an investigation.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance. The ERC further recommended that the Commissioner apologize to the Grievor for the Force's failure to properly deal with his harassment complaint.

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

The Grievor filed a grievance after his harassment complaint had been screened out of the RCMP harassment complaint process. The Commissioner agreed with the Chair of the RCMP External Review Committee that the Commanding Officer did not apply the proper test at the screening stage. The Commissioner allowed the grievance and apologized to the Grievor for the fact that the Grievor's harassment complaint was not handled in accordance with policy.