G-755 - Harassment

The Grievor contested the Respondent's decision that the Grievor had harassed another member 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 (Cpl.) 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.

With respect to the Public Complaint, the Respondent found that the Grievor had played a significant role in its composition; not physically writing it did not negate his involvement. The Respondent found that the Grievor had deliberately attempted to publicly undermine and humiliate the Cpl., and that it was reasonable to conclude that the Grievor would know it would cause offence or harm. With respect to the anonymous letter, the Respondent found that the Grievor, by his own admission, had provided some of the content of the letter, and had participated in faxing it.

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 and raised a reasonable apprehension of bias in 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.

With respect to the public complaint, the ERC found that the Respondent's analysis was consistent with harassment authorities. 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 anonymous letter, the ERC found that the Respondent's analysis was also consistent with harassment authorities. 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. The ERC further found that whether the Level I Adjudicator gave insufficient, or any, weight to an argument or piece of evidence, was not evidence of a real likelihood of bias and was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of impartiality.

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 challenged a decision that he had harassed Corporal (Cpl.) Z. At Level I, the Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Grievor had not established his case. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied, on the basis that the Grievor had failed to demonstrate that the Respondent erred in finding that the Grievor had harassed Cpl. Z by participating in the creation and dissemination of a public complaint and an anonymous letter to various public officials. The Commissioner agreed, and dismissed the grievance.