Grievance Case Summary - G-698

The Grievor presented a harassment complaint (Complaint) against his supervisor (Alleged Harasser) which contained two allegations. Following a review of the Complaint by a Human Resources Officer, the Respondent determined that the Complaint was unfounded.

The Grievor presented a grievance against the Respondent's Decision regarding the Complaint. The Grievor's Grievance Form and its appendix also mentioned an earlier harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser (Earlier Complaint), which had resulted in a separate decision by the Respondent. The Respondent expressed some confusion as to which decision was the subject of this grievance, as a result of which the Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG) obtained submissions from the Grievor and Respondent on that issue. The Grievor's submissions indicated that he had brought a separate grievance against the Respondent's decision in relation to the Earlier Complaint, and that the present grievance related to a written decision by the Respondent regarding the Complaint. The Respondent's submissions asserted that it remained unclear which decision was being grieved. The Respondent noted that the Grievance Form could be read as indicating that the corrective action sought was in relation to the Earlier Complaint, rather than the Complaint.

A Level I Adjudicator (Adjudicator) concluded that the Grievor did not have standing because he had failed to establish that the Respondent had rendered a decision regarding the Complaint. In explaining his conclusion, the Adjudicator referred to the existence of two other grievances presented by the Grievor with respect to the handling of his Earlier Complaint, as well as a related grievance against the Human Resources Officer's actions in relation to the Complaint.

The Grievor submitted his grievance at Level II. He confirmed that the grievance was in relation to the Respondent's decision regarding the Complaint. The Grievor also expressed a concern with the Adjudicator's reference to his other grievance files, as in his view this offended federal privacy legislation.

The ERC found that the Grievor had standing. Subsection 31(1) of the RCMP Act sets out the various standing criteria to present a grievance, one of which is the existence of an actual decision, act or omission that is the subject of the grievance. Despite a lack of clarity in certain grievance documents, the information provided by the Grievor in its entirety identified, as the subject matter of his grievance, the Respondent's decision regarding the Complaint.

The ERC disagreed with the Grievor's suggestion that the Adjudicator's reference to the existence of other related grievance files was an improper use of his personal information. This reference appeared to have been made for the sole purpose of clarifying the question of which decision was the subject of the grievance. In the context in which the standing issue had to be addressed, the reference did not raise any discernable concern of improper use.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be allowed and that submissions be obtained from the Parties so that the Commissioner may rule on the merits.

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, concluding that his harassment complaint was unfounded. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Grievor did not have standing to grieve. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The ERC noted that the Grievor had not provided a copy of the impugned decision to the OCG. Despite this, the ERC held that he had at least identified the decision forming the subject of his grievance. The ERC found that the Grievor had standing and recommended that the grievance be allowed. As redress, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner obtain submissions from the Parties and rule on the merits. The Commissioner agrees with the ERC analysis and findings with respect to standing. However, the Commissioner does not adopt the recommended redress. While it is truly unfortunate that this process has been ongoing for nearly ten years, obtaining submissions on the merits is now impractical. Moreover, the Grievor had declined to provide the impugned decision and other relevant documents related to his harassment complaint several times early in the process when asked to do so. The Commissioner allowed the grievance on the issue of standing and apologized to the Grievor for the challenges he had faced in the workplace.