Grievance Case Summary - G-646

At the time of the events relevant to the grievance, the Grievor had been posted to a detachment for five years. In May 2007, following the departure of the Non-Commissioned Officer in-charge (NCO i/c) of the detachment, the Grievor was placed in the position on an acting basis pending the arrival of a replacement. The new NCO i/c started his posting at the detachment in October 2007. Issues between the Grievor and the NCO i/c arose soon after. The NCO i/c questioned some of the Grievor’s overtime claims and changed the Grievor to day shifts as he was one of the detachment’s NCOs. The Grievor filed a harassment complaint against the new NCO in May 2008. The Grievor started a new posting in June 2008. The complaint contained nine allegations. The Respondent rendered his decision 18 months after the Grievor had filed his complaint. He found the allegations were not established.

The Grievor filed a grievance against the decision, arguing that the harassment complaint process was untimely and the investigation was inadequate as only one third of the detachment had been interviewed and the questions put to the witnesses by the investigators were of a general nature. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the merits.

The TB Harassment Policy states that the complaint process should normally be completed in six months or less. The provisions of AM XII.17, the RCMP harassment policy, require that complaints be dealt with in a timely manner and without undue delay and are consistent with the TB Harassment Policy. The six month period is not a mandatory requirement. However, the ERC found that the delay of 18 months in completing the harassment complaint process in this case was unacceptable and was inconsistent with the provisions of the TB Harassment Policy and AM XII.17, and with the guidance provided by the Federal Court. However, the ERC also found that the delays in the process did not further aggrieve the Grievor and did not compromise the integrity of the investigative process.

The ERC further found that the Grievor had not provided sufficient evidence or arguments to establish that the investigator’s failure to interview additional witnesses resulted in an investigation that omitted crucial evidence. Also, in light of the nature of the allegations and the responses of each of the witnesses to the questions posed by the investigators, the statements taken were adequate and the conduct and content of the witness interviews was procedurally fair.

Finally, the ERC found no evidence that the Force breached its obligations pursuant to AM XII.17 in allowing the Grievor to remain at the detachment for a short period of time following the filing of the Complaint as none of the allegations suggested an immediate and obvious concern for the safety or well-being of the Grievor that would warrant immediate intervention.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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

The Grievor filed a grievance after his harassment complaint had been deemed unfounded, arguing that the Respondent relied on a report based on an inadequate and incomplete investigation and that the harassment complaint process was untimely. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the merits. The Commissioner agreed with the Chair of the RCMP External Review Committee that although the delay was inconsistent with the Treasury Board Harassment Policy and AM XII.17, it did not further aggrieve the Grievor nor did it compromise the integrity of the investigative process. The Grievor did not provide sufficient evidence or arguments to establish that the investigators omitted crucial evidence from the investigation or that the investigation was inadequate and incomplete. The Commissioner denied the grievance.