Grievance Case Summary - G-670

The Alleged Harasser was the Grievor's immediate supervisor. At some point in September 2009, she asked the Grievor for a summary of the work she had done during the week of September 14, 2009. The Grievor requested justification for this request, which she did not get. In October 2009, the Alleged Harasser allegedly humiliated and confronted the Grievor in front of her colleagues, asking her why she was not wearing her uniform, even though her colleagues were also in civilian clothing.

On November 20, 2009, the Grievor filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser. This complaint included two allegations. The Alleged Harasser sent her response to the allegations to the Human Resources Officer (HRO) on January 20, 2010. On February 17, 2010, the HRO concluded that the allegations did not meet the definition of harassment 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 sent to the Respondent for a final decision.

In a new decision, the Respondent concluded that neither allegation met the definition of harassment and dismissed the harassment complaint at the screening stage.

The Grievor filed a second grievance with respect to the Respondent's decision regarding Allegation 1 concerning the request related to the Grievor's work. 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 and, accordingly, he denied the grievance.

The ERC found that the Respondent erred in his finding that Allegation 1 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 one by one, 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.