G-763 - Harassment

The Grievor was the Non-Commissioned Officer in charge of a specialized unit. A civilian member (C/M B) supervised by the Grievor presented a harassment complaint against the Grievor, which was later withdrawn by C/M B. The Grievor then presented a harassment complaint (Complaint) against C/M B. The Grievor’s Complaint principally alleged that C/M B intentionally used misleading wording in his harassment complaint against the Grievor.

Based on the screening recommendation of the Human Resources Officer (HRO), the Responsible Officer (Respondent) screened out the Complaint on the basis that the substance of the Complaint was not related to harassment. In his grievance presentation, the Grievor asserted that the Respondent, with whom the Grievor had discussed the complaint submitted by C/M B, was in a conflict of interest and that the applicable policies were not adhered to in the screening of his Complaint. At Level I, the grievance was upheld with a direction that the Complaint be submitted to a new Responsible Officer to determine whether the Complaint should be investigated. Although the Grievor agreed with the Level I Adjudicator’s finding that there was a reasonable perception of bias on the part of the Respondent, the Grievor disagreed with the redress and filed for review at Level II.

The ERC agreed with the Level I Adjudicator’s finding on the reasonable apprehension of bias. The ERC further found that the Respondent had decided the Complaint in a manner inconsistent with applicable RCMP harassment authorities. The Respondent’s reliance in his Decision, on material related to the screening of C/M B’s Complaint, which had not been disclosed to the Grievor, resulted in a procedurally unfair process. The Respondent also erred by (1) failing to consider the full extent of the behaviours alleged in the Grievor’s Complaint; (2) failing to ensure that clarification was obtained from the Grievor, which denied the Grievor his opportunity to fully explain the details of his allegations; (3) failing to ensure that an investigation into the Grievor’s Complaint took place; (4) finding that the Grievor did not demonstrate that he was harmed by C/M B’s harassment complaint against the Grievor; and (5) concluding that the Grievor’s proper recourse was to grieve the HRO’s decision to accept the withdrawal of C/M B’s Complaint. As well, the ERC found that there was no failure by the Respondent to implement the Level I Direction, as the Grievor’s Level II grievance presentation suspended the Level I Direction.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner: allows the grievance; apologizes to the Grievor for the fact that the Complaint was not screened in accordance with the applicable harassment authorities and jurisprudence; acknowledges that the Respondent did not possess sufficient information to make a final decision; and quashes the Respondent’s decision that the Complaint was not related to harassment. 

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

The Grievor Challenged a decision by the Commanding Officer of ‘’X’’ Division to screen out his harassment complaint. At Level l, the Adjudicator allowed the grievance, finding a reasonable apprehension of bias; however, the Grievor objected to the Level l direction and the failure to consider other aspects of his grievance. The Grievor sought a review at Level ll. The ERC recommended that the grievance be allowed on the basis that the Respondent had not screened out the complaint in compliance with policy and lacked the evidence to do so. Due to the passage of time, the ERC found that a new screening process would be futile. The Commissioner agreed, allowed the grievance, but declined to begin the process afresh, and apologized to the Grievor for the manner in which his complaint was addressed.