Grievance Case Summary - G-735

The Grievor was the Detachment Commander at a Detachment which had experienced problems with overall performance and morale. Shortly before the Grievor started her position at the Detachment, a Management Review report had been completed and an accompanying action plan was put in place to address perceived deficiencies at the Grievor's Detachment. A key element of the action plan was to conduct weekly reviews and reports of the "Quality of Investigations" and "Quality of Supervision" at the Grievor's Detachment. The Respondent, who was the Detachment Commander at another Detachment, and the Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge, Operations, was assigned to conduct these weekly reviews of the Grievor's Detachment.

The Grievor alleged that the Respondent harassed her and abused his authority in multiple ways. The Grievor alleged that the Respondent refused to fulfill his obligations as a supervisor to guide and mentor the Grievor, that he undermined the Grievor by interfering directly with her subordinates, and that he provided "incorrect, inaccurate and defaming" information about the Grievor to RCMP management with the intention of ensuring that a Code of Conduct investigation would be initiated against the Grievor. The Grievor alleged that the Code of Conduct investigation led to her removal from her position as Detachment Commander.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on its merits. She found that the Grievor had not established that the Respondent's actions were consistent with the allegation of harassment and in particular an abuse of authority.

The ERC found that the Grievor failed to establish that the Respondent harassed her or abused his authority in a way that amounted to harassment.

The ERC found that the relationship between the Respondent and the Grievor resembled a supervisory one because of the Respondent's role in the Management Review activities. The Respondent provided written guidance to the Grievor in his reports, but he did not take on the role of being the Grievor's mentor. The Respondent's failure to provide the Grievor with guidance that met the Grievor's expectations did not amount to harassment. The written guidance that was provided to the Grievor in the Respondent's reports was aimed at requiring performance to job standards and did not amount to harassment or an abuse of authority.

The ERC was of the view that the Respondent did not interact with the Grievor's subordinates in a way that undermined the Grievor's authority. While, in certain files, the Respondent provided direction to the Grievor's subordinates that was different from the prior direction given by the Grievor, it was within the scope of the Respondent's Management Review function to do so. The documentation in the record of the interactions between the Respondent and the Grievor's subordinates did not reveal an intent to undermine Grievor's performance of her job and did not constitute an abuse of authority.

The ERC found that the record did not support the Grievor's contention that the Respondent had provided information about her to RCMP management that was "incorrect, inaccurate and defaming" with the intention of ensuring that a Code of Conduct investigation would be initiated against the Grievor. The Respondent's involvement in the events leading to a Code of Conduct investigation did not meet the threshold of harassment or an abuse of authority.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance.

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

The Grievor filed a grievance alleging harassment against the Respondent, who had been ordered to review the files of her subordinates and her directions under a Management Review, which led to her removal as Detachment Commander. The Grievor complained that as her direct supervisor the Respondent had a duty to discuss issues with her and provide guidance, but instead, undermined her, abusing his authority. The Level I Adjudicator found the Grievor failed to establish harassment. The Grievor sought a review at Level II and the matter was referred to the ERC. The ERC recommended the grievance be denied. The Commissioner agreed and found that although the Respondent was not an optimal manager, the Grievor had failed to establish that the Respondent abused his authority and caused her removal. The Commissioner dismissed the grievance.