G-753 - Harassment

The Grievor contested the Respondent's decision that the Grievor had harassed a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) in the Grievor's detachment. Shortly after the Grievor had received a negative performance review, an anonymous public complaint was made to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (CPC). The complaint alleged that two corporals had engaged in "reprehensible, drunken behaviour", and had encouraged a junior member who was about to go on duty to drink excessively. Subsequently, an anonymous letter was sent to numerous public officials claiming negligence and mismanagement by the Grievor's detachment's management. A Non-Commissioned Officer and the two corporals filed a joint harassment complaint against the Grievor alleging that he had authored and sent both the public complaint and the anonymous letter. During the investigation, the Grievor's wife admitted to authoring and sending both. The Grievor admitted providing her with information contained in them, and assisting in faxing the letter to public officials.

At both Level I and Level II, the Grievor argued that he was not the author and sender of the Public Complaint and the letter and that following a complaint from his wife, that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) had found that the RCMP has breached the Privacy Act during the investigation. At Level II the Grievor attached new evidence obtained through an Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request. The Grievor argued that the Adjudicator had erred by not giving any weight to the findings of the OPC that the RCMP had breached his privacy during the investigation. Lastly, the Grievor argued that as the complainants' subordinate, he could not have harassed them because he had no power or authority over them.

The ERC found the new evidence obtained through an ATIP request to be inadmissible because the Grievor had not provided any explanation to substantiate that the evidence could not reasonably have been known by him at the time the grievance was considered at Level I.

As the Grievor had not presented any arguments regarding the anonymous public complaint, the ERC did not address the Respondent's finding that the Allegation was not established.

With respect to the anonymous letter, the ERC found that the Respondent's analysis was consistent with harassment authorities. The Grievor, by his own admission, had provided some of the content of the letter, and had participated in faxing it. In finding that the Grievor's conduct met the test for harassment, the Respondent considered all elements of the test, all relevant evidence, applied the reasonable person test, and considered the severity and impropriety of the act.

With respect to the report from the Privacy Commissioner, the ERC found that if the Grievor wished that any weight be given to his assertions with respect to that report, he bore the onus to present the evidence to support his assertions.

Lastly, the ERC found that there is no requirement in the definition of harassment that the alleged harasser must be in a position of power over the person being harassed.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied because the Respondent's decision was rendered in accordance with relevant RCMP and Treasury Board policy, as well as the applicable law.

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

The Grievor anonymously sent a letter to the local Mayor, along with other public officials, complaining about the leadership of his superior after a negative performance review, acting in concert with his spouse, a nonmember. The superior made a Harassment Complaint against the Grievor. The Grievor insisted he did not send the anonymous letters and his wife admitted to doing so. An investigation was completed, which included numerous witnesses and statements from the Grievor and the Grievor’s wife. The Respondent found the Grievor participated in sending the letter and that harassment was established. The Grievor filed a Grievance disputing the Respondent’s decision on the basis of a number of issues including his belief that no harassment was possible since the Grievor was under the authority of the Complainant. The Level I adjudicator dismissed the Grievance, finding the Grievor failed to establish that the Respondent’s decision was inconsistent with applicable policies and legislation. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The matter was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) who recommended the Grievance be dismissed. The Commissioner found the Respondent’s decision that harassment was not established, was not inconsistent with policy and legislation, as the Grievor behaved in a manner which was harmful, acknowledging that it was irrelevant that the Complainant was in a position of authority, by virtue of her rank. The Commissioner dismissed the Grievance.