Grievance Case Summary - G-632

The Alleged Harasser informed the Grievor’s superior, in writing, of his concerns with the way in which the Grievor had managed subordinates and with the quality of a piece of work the Grievor had submitted. Upon learning about these communications, the Grievor tendered a harassment complaint (Complaint). The Grievor argued that the Alleged Harasser had offended, demeaned and humiliated her. The Human Resources Officer (HRO) reviewed the Complaint and sought input from the Alleged Harasser and the Grievor’s superior. The HRO concluded that a full investigation was not required and recommended to the Respondent that the allegations did not meet the definition of harassment set forth in the RCMP Harassment Policy. The Respondent accepted the HRO’s determination and screened the Complaint out of the RCMP harassment complaint process.

The Grievor presented a Level I grievance which was denied on its merits. The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor had failed to link her concerns to a harassment complaint process established by a Treasury Board (TB) or RCMP harassment authority and that the HRO and Respondent discharged their functions in accordance with applicable harassment policies. The Grievor submitted her grievance at Level II. She argues that the decision to screen out the Complaint was inconsistent with the RCMP Harassment Policy, as the substance of the Complaint satisfied the definition of harassment.

The ERC confirmed that the preliminary requirements of referability, standing and timeliness had each been met. It went on to find that, although the appointment of a representative by the Respondent was improperly authorized, that appointment was acceptable as the Grievor did not object to or suffer prejudice as a result of the irregular appointment.

The ERC stated that the test to be applied when assessing whether a harassment complaint should be screened out is clear: assuming the allegation(s) contained in a complaint are true, do one or more of them fall within the definition of harassment set forth in the RCMP Harassment Policy? Underlying this determination is the principle that the discretion to screen out a complaint prior to a full investigation of the allegation(s) should be exercised very carefully and sparingly. The Respondent did not review the Grievor’s allegations assuming they were true. Rather, the allegations were screened out on the bases of substantive determinations which should not have been made at the screening stage. If the HRO and Respondent intended to render a final decision and not a screening decision, they first should have clearly stated their intention to do so and second, at the very least, were required, as a matter of fairness, to interview the Grievor.

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 screen her harassment complaint.

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. The Commissioner found that the Human Resources Officer did not have the authority to reject the complaint at the screening stage as the authority rested with the Commanding Officer, pursuant to the applicable policy. The Commissioner also found that the Commanding Officer did not apply the appropriate test when rendering a decision on the screening of the harassment complaint. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC, allowed the grievance, and apologized to the Grievor for the fact that the harassment complaint was not handled in accordance with policy.