Grievance Case Summary - G-695

The Grievor presented a harassment complaint (Complaint) against his supervisor (Alleged Harasser) which contained various allegations. Following receipt of the Complaint, the Respondent, in his capacity as Human Resources Officer, obtained a response to the Complaint from the Alleged Harasser. The Respondent also spoke briefly to a potential witness. The Respondent determined that there was sufficient information in relation to the Complaint, that no investigation was required, and that the matter could be forwarded to the Responsible Officer for a decision in relation to the Complaint. The Respondent provided a recommendation to the Responsible Officer to that effect. The Responsible Officer issued a decision confirming that after reviewing the allegations and the response provided by the Alleged Harasser, there was no need for a further investigation. The Responsible Officer concluded that each of the allegations were unfounded.

The Grievor filed a grievance against the Respondent's handling of his Complaint. He also lodged a separate grievance against the Responsible Officer's final decision regarding the Complaint (Related Grievance). An Adjudicator denied the grievance on the ground that the Grievor did not have standing. In the Adjudicator's view, the grievance raised the same issues which were present in the Related Grievance against the Responsible Officer's final and determinative decision. The Grievor submitted his grievance to Level II.

The key issue to be addressed in this matter was that of the Grievor's standing. Subsection 31(1) of the RCMP Act sets out the various standing criteria to present a grievance, one of which is that a member be aggrieved by a decision, act or omission "in respect of which no other process for redress is provided by this Act, the regulations or the Commissioner's standing orders". The ERC found that the Grievor did not have standing as the issues identified in the grievance were concurrently raised in the Related Grievance and addressed in ERC Findings and Recommendations 2400-16-006 (G-694), which examines the actions of both the Responsible Officer and the Respondent in relation to the Complaint. The Related Grievance thus engaged another process for redress to address the subject-matter of this grievance. The ERC observed that a review of the Responsible Officer's final decision regarding the Complaint, through the Related Grievance, allowed for a comprehensive assessment of the entire process which led to the Responsible Officer's decision, including the manner in which the Respondent had carried out his role.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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

The Grievor challenged the manner in which his harassment complaint was handled by the then Human Resources Officer (HRO), as well as the recommendation the HRO provided to the Responsible Officer as to its disposition. The Respondent raised the preliminary issue of standing. The Level I Adjudicator rendered a decision, finding that the Grievor lacked standing. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied given that his grievance in the case of G-694 constituted another process for redress, as the substantive issues were raised by the Grievor in both grievances. Further, the ERC found that a single decision would enhance the efficiency of the grievance process. The Commissioner agrees with the ERC analysis and findings. The grievance is denied on the basis that the Grievor does not have standing.