Grievance Case Summary - G-676

In December 2007, the Grievor submitted a harassment complaint against two of her superiors based on events that occurred from 2004 to 2006. The harassment complaint contained a multitude of allegations. The Grievor ascribed the adverse treatment by her superiors to discrimination based on her sexual orientation and race. Even though the complaint was received one and half years after the last allegation, a fact-finding investigation was authorized, owing to the number of allegations. The fact-finding investigation was of a limited nature. It was not a full investigation as only the Grievor and one of the alleged harassers were interviewed. No independent witnesses were interviewed in respect of the allegations. In October 2010, the Respondent issued a Decision rejecting the complaint on the basis that the allegations did not meet the prima facie definition of harassment. The Grievor grieved the Respondent’s Decision and submitted that the Decision was made further to an improperly conducted process.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the Grievance on the ground that the Respondent’s Decision to screen out the harassment complaint was reasonable and consistent with the Treasury Board’s Policy on Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace and Chapter XII.17 of the RCMP Administrative Manual entitled Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace (AM XII.17). The Adjudicator found that there was no harassment nor was there evidence of discrimination based on race or sexual orientation. The Adjudicator also asserted that the Grievor’s concerns with the investigational process should have been the subject of separate grievances rather than being incorporated into a grievance of the Respondent’s Decision.

At Level II, the Grievor submitted that it was an error for the Adjudicator to refuse to consider her allegations that errors were made during the harassment investigation process on the basis that those errors were not personal acts or decisions of the Respondent. The Grievor submitted that the fact-finding investigation was a full investigation rather than a part of the screening process and that the investigation was flawed. The Grievor asserted that both the Adjudicator and the Respondent did not properly consider whether the allegations set out in the complaint, individually or holistically, amounted to harassment. The matter was referred to the ERC for review.

The ERC found that the Respondent had made a Decision to screen out the harassment complaint. Within the Decision, the Respondent endorsed the findings of the Human Resources Officer (HRO) who recommended a screening out. The ERC found that alleged errors made in the processing of a complaint that were not personal actions or decisions of the Respondent, such as the findings of the HRO, can be considered in assessing whether the complaint was properly screened.

The Respondent and HRO did not screen the complaint in accordance with the applicable policy authorities and the relevant legal test which required the Respondent to assess whether the allegations contained within the complaint, if true, fell within the definition of harassment as set forth in AM XII.17. The ERC found that the Grievor’s complaint should have been screened into the harassment complaint process, including the initiation of a full investigation. The ERC also found that harassment complaint process was not timely as it took almost 3 years to screen out the Grievor’s complaint.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the Grievance on the ground that the Respondent’s Decision to screen out the harassment complaint was not consistent with the relevant harassment authorities. Given that the events in question that took place date back to 2004 to 2006, it would be not be feasible for a new screening process or a harassment investigation to be effectively carried out as witnesses may not be available and memories will not be fresh. As a result, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner apologize to the Grievor for the RCMP’s failure to comply with relevant harassment authorities and properly deal with the harassment complaint as well as for the delay in the harassment complaint process.

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

The Grievor filed a grievance after her harassment complaint consisting of 25 allegations, including discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, against two supervisors at her detachment had been screened out of the RCMP harassment complaint process. The Level I Adjudicator found the Respondent correctly screened out the complaint on the basis that there was no evidence of discrimination or harassment. The Grievor sought a review at Level II and the matter was referred to the ERC. The ERC recommended the grievance be allowed. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC and found that the Respondent failed to apply the appropriate test in screening out the harassment complaint. The Commissioner apologized to the Grievor for the delay and for the complaint not being handled in accordance with policy. Due to the passage of time, an investigation was no longer feasible.