Grievance Case Summary - G-672

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 this grievance. As a result of the request, the Grievor received several documents, including an email that the Alleged Harasser had sent to herself. The email stated that she believed that the Grievor had asked to return to full-time employment just before her sick leave so that she could be paid full-time rather than part-time during her sick leave.

The Grievor filed a harassment complaint on August 18, 2010, against the Alleged Harasser for writing this email. Initially, the Human Resources Officer (HRO) determined that the allegation did not meet the definition of harassment and dismissed the complaint. A Level I Adjudicator referred the complaint to the Responsible Officer (RO), since the HRO did not have the authority to dismiss the complaint. The Alleged Harasser then submitted her comments. The RO determined that the allegation was unfounded in light of the Alleged Harasser's explanations.

The Grievor filed a grievance against this decision. However, this case involves a harassment allegation that was dealt with in a previous case. In fact, the Grievor filed two complaints related to the same decision regarding this allegation. Although the Adjudicator commented on the fact that it was the same allegation, he nevertheless considered the merits of the grievance and denied it since the Grievor had failed to demonstrate how the Respondent's decision was inconsistent with policy.

The ERC found that this file had become moot since its subject matter had been dealt with in a previous grievance.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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 Grievor had challenged this same decision in another grievance in which the Commissioner rendered a decision. In G-669, the Commissioner allowed the grievance, and reversed the Respondent's decision to dismiss the Grievor's harassment complaint.

The Level I Adjudicator dismissed the merits of the grievance.

The Commissioner accepted the ERC's recommendations, and found that the grievance was moot insofar as a decision on the same issue had already been rendered in G-669. She also found that there was no basis to exercise her discretion to decide on the Grievor's request on the merits despite the mootness of the case. The grievance is denied.