Grievance Case Summary - G-673

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 two emails written by the Alleged Harasser and sent to the Officer in Charge of the section of the parties. These concerned operational activities from which the Grievor had asked to be exempted since she could not make childcare arrangements for her three young children. According to the file, these emails were requested by the Officer in Charge who had recently arrived in the section.

On June 11, 2013, the Grievor filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser. On June 12, 2013, the Human Resources Officer (HRO) requested clarification from the Grievor and informed the Alleged Harasser that a complaint had been filed against her. The Officer in Charge of Human Resources (Respondent) rejected Allegation 1 but accepted Allegation 2 as possible harassment. The Alleged Harasser then submitted her comments. The Respondent made a decision regarding Allegation 2. He determined that it was unfounded in light of the Alleged Harasser's explanations.

The Grievor filed a grievance against this decision. She argued that the emails 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 Grievor stated that the Respondent had not examined all of the evidence provided. The Level I Adjudicator dismissed the grievance since the Grievor had failed to demonstrate how the Respondent's decision was inconsistent with policy.

The ERC concluded that the Grievor had not discharged her burden of demonstrating that the Respondent's decision violated applicable policies or the principles of procedural fairness. Although the Grievor indicated that she did not agree with the Respondent's assessment of the evidence, she did not identify any factual or procedural errors made by him.

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.

The Level I Adjudicator dismissed the merits of the grievance.

The Commissioner accepted the ERC's recommendations, and found that the Grievor had not discharged her burden of establishing that the Respondent's decision was contrary to the applicable statutes and policies.