Grievance Case Summary - G-692

In December 2005, the Grievor submitted a harassment complaint against six of his supervisors (Alleged Harassers) based on events that occurred in 2005. The harassment complaint included allegations that the dates on the Grievor's Performance Evaluation and Review Report (PERR) were changed by one of the Alleged Harassers so that a positive assessment would not need to be included, leaving the PERR in a common area, denial of a promotional opportunity, and denial of overtime pay.

In August 2006, the Responsible Officer issued a decision rejecting the complaint on the basis that the allegations of harassment and abuse of authority were unfounded. The Grievor grieved the investigation of the harassment complaint, arguing that his request for materials was not met. He identified the Harassment Advisor as the Respondent and he alleged that none of the witnesses, the names of which were submitted by the Grievor, were interviewed.

The Level I Adjudicator allowed the grievance on the ground that the Respondent had acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the RCMP Harassment Policy that existed at the time (Administrative Manual entitled "Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace"(AM XII.17)). The Respondent did not provide the witness names to the Human Resources Officer (HRO) and thus failed to adhere to AM XII.17.H.5., which requires that the Harassment Prevention Coordinator provide information and support to all levels of management and employees concerning matters related to the RCMP Harassment Policy. The Adjudicator concluded that the only possible remedy was to send the matter back to the current Respondent to put forward the information that ought to have been put to the HRO and seek direction from the current HRO on the matter.

At Level II, the Grievor disagreed with the Adjudicator's reasons for denying the following requested remedies: apologies from the Alleged Harassers, a Code of Conduct investigation of the Alleged Harassers, joining together of the current grievance with seven other matters initiated by the Grievor, and a promotion for the Grievor. The matter was referred to the ERC for review.

The ERC found that the harassment complaint had been screened in but the HRO and Responsible Officer decided not to investigate. The Respondent failed to adhere to the RCMP Harassment Policy because he did not provide the HRO with certain information, including the list of the witness names. The actions of the Respondent unfortunately contributed to a decision by the HRO and the Responsible Officer not to investigate the complaint.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance on the ground that the Respondent did not process the complaint in a way that was consistent with the relevant harassment authorities. Given that a significant amount of time has passed since the events in question took place (2005), the Adjudicator's proposed remedy is not feasible. Given the passage of time, it is unlikely for a new screening process or a harassment investigation to be effectively carried out. As a result, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner apologize to the Grievor for the RCMP's failures to comply with relevant harassment authorities and properly deal with the harassment complaint.

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

The Grievor filed a harassment complaint against six superiors, based on an abuse of authority, which included the following acts: revision of the date of his Performance Evaluation and Review Report (PERR) to exclude a positive assessment rendering him non-promotable and recommending a transfer; leaving his PERR in a common area allowing its disclosure; and, the denial of the following: a promotion, plain clothes allowances and overtime pay. The Responsible Officer found the complaint unfounded and that the matter consisted of workplace conflict not harassment, based on information provided by the original Harassment Prevention Coordinator. The Grievor claimed that the Harassment Prevention Coordinator, whom he named as Respondent, failed to obtain information from witnesses identified by the Grievor and the omission resulted in the failure of the HRO to complete an investigation and the erroneous decision by the Responsible Officer. Although the Level I Adjudicator allowed the grievance, finding that the Respondent acted in a manner inconsistent with harassment policy in failing to provide the witness names to the HRO and directed the matter be returned for further consideration, the Grievor sought a decision at Level II. The ERC recommended the grievance be allowed, but that due to the passage of time, investigation of the complaint is not feasible. The ERC recommended the Commissioner apologize to the Grievor on behalf of the Force with no other redress. The Commissioner accepted the ERC findings and recommendations, allowed the grievance and issued an apology to the Grievor.