Grievance Case Summary - G-732

Between September 2011 and March 2014, the Grievor was off work several times for medical reasons. To facilitate his return to work, he received counselling from the Alleged Harasser. In November 2012, the Grievor obtained access to his medical record and was therefore able to read what the Alleged Harasser had written about him. Since he was dissatisfied by the latter's findings, the Grievor filed a harassment complaint in which he claimed he was mistakenly diagnosed as having medical issues, which prevented him from returning to operational duties. The Grievor's complaint was not investigated. On July 25, 2014, the Respondent rendered a decision dismissing the complaint on the ground that the allegations did not meet the definition of harassment.

On August 8, 2014, the Grievor filed a grievance indicating that he was challenging the decision to dismiss his harassment complaint. In his submissions, the Grievor: (1) disputed the fact that his complaint was not investigated; (2) accused the Respondent of basing its decision on the wrong document; (3) claimed that the Respondent did not have the skills required to assess the allegations in his complaint, and, as a result, a healthcare professional should have been appointed as a decision-maker; and (4) argued that he was not given all the information in his medical record, which prevented him from filing a comprehensive complaint against the Alleged Harasser.

The ERC concluded that the Grievor failed to meet his burden of establishing that the Respondent's decision contravened applicable policies. On that issue, it was found that the Respondent's decision not to conduct an investigation was reasonable under the circumstances. It was also found that the Respondent had been properly appointed as decision-maker and that he had thoroughly considered all the evidence submitted by the Grievor before rendering his decision. The ERC also noted that the Respondent did not have the knowledge, expertise or even the authority to interfere in the Grievor's medical record, and it was therefore impossible to fault him for refusing to address the disclosure issue. Finally, the ERC pointed out that although the Grievor's dispute with the RCMP was set out in the form of a harassment complaint, it seemed to relate more to the assessment of the OHSS and the medical profile it attributed to him over the years. In that regard, the ERC found that neither it nor the Commissioner had the authority to examine the content of the Grievor's medical record, and the latter should have therefore used another mechanism to challenge his medical profile along with the findings and diagnoses made by the healthcare professionals with respect to him.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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

[Translation]

The Grievor filed a harassment complaint. Being of the opinion that the Grievor's situation did not meet the definition of harassment, the Respondent dismissed the complaint. The Grievor challenged the decision by filing this grievance. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the grounds that the Respondent had followed the procedure for screening the Grievor's harassment complaint. The ERC considers that the Grievor failed to present evidence demonstrating that the Respondent's decision was unjustified or unreasonable. The ERC therefore recommends that the Commissioner deny the grievance. The Commissioner agrees with the ERC's recommendation and denies the grievance.