Grievance Case Summary - G-669

The Grievor is employed by a community police services section. On September 10, 2008, she signed a memorandum of understanding with her immediate supervisor to work part-time. The Alleged Harasser replaced the Grievor's immediate supervisor as of August 4, 2009, as the Officer in Charge of the section. In the spring of 2010, the Alleged Harasser sent an email to herself indicating that due to the Grievor's part-time job and numerous absences "for various reasons", the Grievor did not seem to be willing to assume the duties of a corporal position. The Grievor had access to this email under the Access to Information Act as part of a grievance process. On November 7, 2009, the Alleged Harasser allegedly also wrote in an email that the Grievor had planned a sick leave for financial reasons.

On August 18, 2010, the Grievor filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser in relation to these two emails. The complaint included two allegations. On March 8, 2011, the Human Resources Officer (HRO) concluded that Allegation 2, if established, could meet the definition of harassment. The Alleged Harasser sent her response to the allegations to the HRO on March 24, 2011. On April 27, 2011, the HRO concluded that the allegations were unfounded and accordingly dismissed the complaint.

The Grievor filed a grievance against this decision. A Level I Adjudicator determined that the HRO should have referred the complaint to the Responsible Officer for a final decision. The complaint was then referred back to the screening stage. The HRO's report was then sent to the Respondent for a final decision. The Respondent found that neither of the two allegations met the definition of harassment. He agreed with the recommendation of the HRO, although the latter had concluded that Allegation 2 could constitute harassment if it were established.

The Level I Adjudicator indicated that his mandate was limited to reviewing the Respondent's decision regarding the process followed and not the merits of the decision. The Adjudicator indicated that the Grievor had not explained how the Respondent had erred in the process. He therefore denied the grievance.

In her submissions, the Grievor reiterated the facts that led to the alleged harassment and indicated that it was indeed harassment. At Level II, she maintained that the Respondent did not properly apply the definition of harassment. The Respondent indicated that he had followed the policy and had also relied on the questions proposed by the Treasury Board in assessing the complaint. According to him, the Alleged Harasser had acted within her management rights and the allegations did not meet the definition of harassment.

The ERC found that the Respondent erred in his finding that Allegation 2 did not meet the definition of harassment. Rather, the Respondent analyzed whether the allegation might be substantiated and, in doing so, bypassed the screening stage. The ERC also concluded that the Respondent should have considered the allegations not only separately, but also as a whole. Finally, the ERC found that the Respondent should have analyzed the allegations by applying the concept of abuse of authority.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be allowed.

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

[Translation]

The Grievor filed a grievance challenging the Respondent's decision to dismiss her harassment complaint at the screening stage.

The Level I Adjudicator dismissed the merits of the grievance.

The Commissioner accepted the ERC's recommendations, and found that the Respondent's decision was contrary to the Treasury Board Policy on Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace. The grievance is allowed. However, given the time that has passed since the complaint was filed, the Commissioner did not refer the matter back to the screening stage. The Commissioner sincerely apologized to the Grievor for the RCMP's failure to process her harassment complaint in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace, and Chapter XII.7 of the Administration Manual.