Grievance Case Summary - G-671

The Alleged Harasser was the Grievor's immediate supervisor. On January 11, 2013, the Grievor submitted an access to information request in the context of a grievance not related to the present grievance. As a result of the request, the Grievor received several documents. These documents included a performance appraisal written by the Alleged Harasser, which the Grievor considered to be entirely detrimental to her and which had been written while she was on sick leave. The Grievor became aware of this appraisal only once she received the documents through the access to information request.

The Grievor submitted a harassment complaint on June 11, 2013, against this appraisal. On June 18, 2013, the Responsible Officer rendered a decision on the complaint, determining that it did not meet the definition of harassment and that the Alleged Harasser had followed the performance management policy.

The Grievor filed a grievance against this decision. She argued that the appraisal did constitute harassment, that all of the events that had occurred since August 4, 2009, demonstrated that there had been several attacks on her and that they met the definition of harassment. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the grounds that the Grievor had failed to demonstrate how the Respondent's decision was inconsistent with the policies and that she had only expressed her opinion regarding her performance appraisal.

The ERC found that the Respondent erred in his finding that the allegation did not meet the definition of harassment. Indeed, given the level of detail in the allegation, it was not clear at first glance that the allegation did not meet the definition of harassment. Whether the manner in which the performance appraisal had been written might constitute harassment was an issue that needed to be investigated and analyzed further. Finally, the ERC found that the Respondent should have analyzed the allegation 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.