Grievance Case Summary - G-689

The Grievor received late-night texts from a phone belonging to a male colleague whom she did not know well (Alleged Harasser). The texts invited her to an out-of-town party he was attending, but one of them was inappropriate. The Alleged Harasser soon apologized to the Grievor in writing, but insisted that somebody else – possibly another RCMP member at the party – had jokingly used his phone to send her various texts, including the inappropriate text. Subsequent texts implied that the parties mended fences. However, the record also suggested that the Alleged Harasser may have admitted to sending the inappropriate text. It further suggested that the Alleged Harasser made an in-person apology to the Grievor that she found insincere in light of a rude nickname she believed he and other male peers had given her.

The Grievor lodged a Harassment Complaint (Complaint). The Alleged Harasser filed a written reply to which he attached all of the text messages between the two parties. It is clear from the record that a Human Resources Officer screened-in the Complaint and deduced that any further investigation was unnecessary because the alleged harassment was confined to text messages. The Human Resources Officer then prepared a draft decision for the Respondent's completion. The Respondent found that the Complaint was "unsubstantiated". He reasoned that the Alleged Harasser had apologized to the Grievor, that the Grievor accepted the apology, that a lack of sincerity was not harassment and that the case involved an isolated incident which was resolved by the parties. The Grievor filed a Level I grievance which was denied on the merits. She resubmitted the grievance at Level II.

After disposing of various undisputed preliminary and ancillary issues, the ERC found that the Respondent had decided the Complaint in a manner inconsistent with Treasury Board and RCMP harassment authorities, as well as with associated ERC and Commissioner jurisprudence. Specifically, even if the alleged harassment was limited to the handful of cursory written materials submitted by the parties, the Grievor was nevertheless entitled, as a matter of basic fairness, to be interviewed and to respond to the Alleged Harasser's written reply to her Complaint. It was troubling that no investigation took place in these circumstances, however, as it was evident that what transpired was serious, contentious, multifaceted and not exclusively confined to writing. Although some of the evidence raised questions regarding the nature of what had really happened between the Grievor and the Alleged Harasser, those questions should have been dealt with as part of a broader inquiry into the matter, and not used as rationales for dismissing the Complaint in the absence of more complete information.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner: allow the grievance; apologize to the Grievor for the fact that the Complaint was not decided in compliance with the applicable harassment authorities and jurisprudence; acknowledge that the Respondent did not possess sufficient information to make a final decision; and quash the Respondent's decision that the Complaint was unsubstantiated. Lastly, recognizing the Commissioner's strong support for modernized harassment resolution processes, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner discuss the outcome of this matter with stakeholders if she believes it offers any broader lessons that might help further strengthen the RCMP's present harassment processes.

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

The Grievor challenged a decision by the Commanding Officer of "X" Division, finding that her harassment complaint was unsubstantiated in the absence of an investigation. At Level I, the Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that the Grievor was afforded procedural fairness in the handling of her harassment complaint. The Level I Adjudicator found that a formal investigation had not been necessary, nor was it necessary for the Grievor to have had an opportunity to rebut the alleged harasser's statement. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The ERC recommended that the grievance be allowed on the basis that the Respondent relied on incomplete information in rendering his decision. The ERC also found that the complaint was not afforded basic fairness, as the Grievor was not interviewed or given any opportunity to respond to the alleged harasser's information. The Commissioner agrees with the ERC analysis and findings. The grievance is allowed.