Grievance Case Summary - G-694

The Grievor presented a harassment complaint (Complaint) against his supervisor (Alleged Harasser) which contained various allegations. According to the Complaint, the Alleged Harasser had, during a first meeting, referred to the Grievor using a derogatory term and shouted at him in an aggressive manner, requiring a third party, Witness A, to intervene. The Complaint also took issue with the manner in which the Alleged Harasser had discussed a work-related issue involving the Grievor with others, in the Grievor's absence. In addition, the Complaint alleged that the Alleged Harasser had discussed with another third party, Witness B, the fact that a Conduct investigation had been ordered against the Grievor, causing Witness B to feel "extremely uncomfortable". The Complaint further asserted that the Grievor had been subjected to "sarcasm and unprofessional responses" in text messages from the Alleged Harasser.

A Human Resources Officer (HRO) screened-in the Complaint and approached Witness A with respect to what had occurred during the first meeting. Witness A did not wish to provide a statement, but he indicated to the HRO that while "both parties were in conflict" the Alleged Harasser's actions during the first meeting "did not constitute harassment". The Complaint was forwarded to the Alleged Harasser who provided a response to the Complaint. The HRO then determined there was sufficient information in relation to the Complaint, that no investigation was required, and that the matter could be forwarded to the Respondent for a decision. The Respondent determined that the Complaint was unfounded. The Grievor filed a Level I grievance which was denied on the merits. He resubmitted the grievance at Level II.

The ERC found that the Respondent had decided the Complaint in a manner inconsistent with Treasury Board and RCMP harassment authorities. The Grievor was not interviewed or given the chance to explain in more detail the allegations in his Complaint, and the Alleged Harasser's detailed response was considered by the Respondent without the Grievor having an opportunity to address it. These omissions resulted in an unfair process, and the decision to proceed directly to a final decision without investigation was based upon incomplete information. The ERC also disagreed with the assessment that an investigation was not necessary in the matter. An investigation could have enhanced the Respondent's ability to determine whether harassment had taken place, as it could potentially have obtained the version of events of Witnesses A and B and, in the case of Witness A, properly documented his reluctance to furnish a statement. Further, an investigation could have assessed whether electronic messages existed and could be retrieved for the Respondent's review, to better understand the allegation of sarcastic and unprofessional exchanges.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner: allow the grievance; apologize to the Grievor for the fact that the Complaint was not decided in accordance 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 unfounded.

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

The Grievor challenged a decision by the then Commanding Officer of "X" Division, finding that his harassment complaint was unfounded. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, noting that she had not found any evidence that the Respondent's decision was inconsistent with RCMP policy. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The ERC recommended that the grievance be allowed on the basis that the handling of the complaint, and the decision itself, were inconsistent with applicable harassment authorities and jurisprudence. The ERC found that the Respondent's decision was based on incomplete information, and further inquiries could have enhanced the Respondent's ability to determine whether harassment took place. Further, the ERC found that the principle of basic fairness was not adhered to in the Grievor's situation, and the Respondent erred by rendering his decision in the absence of affording the Grievor an opportunity to fully explain his complaint or respond to the alleged harasser's reply. The Commissioner agrees with the ERC analysis and findings. The grievance is allowed.