Grievance Case Summary - G-633

The Alleged Harasser sent the Grievor’s superior officer an email in which criticisms were made regarding the Grievor’s perceived inflexibility and failure to help address a health and safety risk. The Alleged Harasser copied the Grievor on the email. The Grievor presented a harassment complaint (Complaint). She urged that the content of the email was derogatory and demeaning and that the fact she was copied on it was intimidating. The Human Resources Officer (HRO) reviewed the Complaint, collected input from the Alleged Harasser and the Grievor’s superior officer, concluded that a full investigation was not required and advised the Respondent that the allegation did not meet the definition of harassment set forth in the RCMP Harassment Policy. The Respondent accepted the HRO’s conclusion 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 allegation assuming it was true. Rather the allegation was screened out on the basis of a substantive determination 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 observed that, had the Respondent applied the appropriate test to his screening of the Grievor’s allegation, the allegation, if true, did not appear to relate to harassment. The conduct in question involved one email which was sent from the Alleged Harasser to the Grievor’s superior officer, copied to the Grievor. In applying the screening test, it is assumed that the circumstances, contents and sending of the email were true. However, there is no requirement to assume that the email was related to harassment as that is the very question to be addressed. The email contained no derogatory or demeaning language and the fact that it was copied to the Grievor cannot be assumed, in and of itself without evidence, to be an act of intimidation. Other than stating that the email caused her embarrassment and that she viewed its contents as derogatory, the Grievor referred to no other conduct or circumstances which, if true, could relate to harassment as defined in the RCMP Harassment Policy.

The ERC stressed that this observation did not alter the fact that the screening of the Complaint was not carried out in accordance with the RCMP Harassment Policy. Whether the Respondent made a screening decision or a final decision, the decision was flawed in that the Grievor was not properly heard.

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.