G-757 - Harassment

The Grievor contested the Respondent's decision that his harassment complaint filed in April 2012 was not established. The Grievor had alleged that in June 2009, a Corporal (Cpl.) in his detachment had harassed him by telling his supervisor that his work was atrocious, and by using a derogatory term to describe him. The Alleged Harasser admitted to the Grievor that he had made the comment. At the time of the incident, the Grievor and the Alleged Harasser discussed the comment and they both agreed to move forward. Later, in 2011, the Grievor's supervisor used the derogatory term as part of an investigation involving the Grievor's work performance.

The Grievor challenged the Respondent's decision on the basis that it was unclear whether the Respondent had considered all relevant materials. He further argued that the Respondent had erred by failing to recognize that the conduct constituted harassment. Lastly, he argued that there was an apprehension of bias on the part of the Respondent in relation to the Grievor's supervisor's correspondence with the Respondent's representative. The LeveI I Adjudicator dismissed the grievance finding that the Grievor had not met his onus to establish that the Respondent's decision was inconsistent with applicable policies and legislation. The Adjudicator rejected the Grievor's argument regarding bias because when the Respondent named his representative for the grievance, he had already discharged his duty and was functus officio with regard to the harassment decision.

At Level II, the Grievor argued that the Level I Adjudicator breached the principles of procedural fairness and that the Level I decision was not consistent with RCMP and Treasury Board policy. He further argued that the Level I Adjudicator lacked a clear understanding of the facts, and that the Respondent and the Level I Adjudicator had not considered the totality of the evidence.

The ERC found that, despite the Grievor's bald assertion, there was no breach of procedural fairness. The Grievor was heard through a Level I submission, and there was no argument or evidence in the record to rebut the presumption of impartiality of the Level I Adjudicator.

The ERC found that, since the Grievor did not provide any explanation or specify any provisions of the harassment policies that the Respondent failed to respect, he failed to demonstrate how the Respondent's decision was not in line with these policies.

The ERC found that there was no error evident on the face of the record regarding the Respondent's assessment of the totality of the evidence, and his finding that the conduct did not constitute harassment. The Respondent reviewed the evidence and applied the correct test. The Respondent was clear that it was one comment made by the Alleged Harasser which was at issue. The Respondent pointed out that harassment is normally a series of incidents, but can be one severe incident which has a lasting impact on the individual. The Respondent noted that the Grievor himself indicated that he felt the issue between himself and the Alleged Harasser had been resolved once they informally discussed it, and that had his supervisor not subsequently raised the derogatory comment, the Grievor would not have thought about it again. The Respondent therefore found that it had no further negative impact on the Grievor, had not continued to cause him offence or pain, and therefore did not meet the definition of harassment.

Regarding the Grievor's allegation of an apprehension of bias against the Respondent, the ERC agreed with the Level I Adjudicator's review of the issue.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied

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

In 2009, the Alleged Harasser advised the Grievor his file work was “atrocious” and he was a ''cancer''. In 2011, the comments were repeated in a performance review, executed by a different superior. Shortly after, the Grievor filed a Harassment Complaint, stating that the Alleged Harasser called him a ''cancerous tumour'', and the remark was resurrected by the 2011 performance review. The Respondent found that although the comment was not constructive, the Grievor and the Alleged Harasser discussed it, resolved the issue and then, it resurfaced when a different superior raised it in the performance review. The Respondent determined there was no harassment by the Alleged Harasser since the performance review was completed by someone else. The Grievor filed a Grievance disputing the Respondent’s decision. 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 accepted the Respondent’s reasoning that although the comment may have been worded more constructively, harassment was not established as the comment was not to harm the Grievor, found the performance review did not resurrect the remark, and was executed by another superior. The Commissioner dismissed the Grievance.