G-788 – Harassment
Two allegations of harassment, made by a Complainant against the Grievor, were investigated. The first allegation involved the Grievor, a manager, replacing the Complainant as an attendee at a conference, without telling the Complainant. It also involved the Grievor allegedly telling a third party that there was “no way in hell” the Complainant would attend. The second allegation involved email communications from the Grievor to the Complainant. These occurred after the Complainant had declared that she no longer wished to receive such communications. The Respondent issued a Decision finding that both allegations of harassment were founded. The Grievor grieved that Decision, and a Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance.
The Grievor submitted the grievance at Level II. The Grievor alleged that the Respondent made findings of fact that were inconsistent with the evidence. The Grievor also believed that the Respondent misstated the applicable test to decide if harassment had taken place. He further argued that the Respondent had failed to apply the proper test to the allegations. Finally, in the Grievor’s view, the Respondent had ignored a key principle regarding a manager’s right to exercise managerial duties.
ERC Findings
The ERC found that the grievance should be denied. In the ERC’s view, the Respondent did not make findings that were inconsistent with the evidence, nor did he misstate the applicable reasonable person test. The Respondent’s reasons also showed that he had grappled with the necessary considerations when he determined that harassment had taken place. Finally, the Respondent’s Decision showed that he was alive to the balance to be struck between the Grievor’s right to exercise his managerial duties and the concurrent obligation to exercise those duties respectfully.
ERC Recommendation
The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.
Commissioner of the RCMP Decision dated October 31, 2024
The Commissioner’s decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:
Allegations of harassment were made against the Greivor. Following an investigation, the Respondent issued a decision finding that two allegations of harassment were founded. The Greivor presented this Grievance, challenging the Respondent's decision. The Greivance was dismissed at Level I.
The Grievor sought a review at Level II and the case was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee. It recommended for the Grievance to be denied since the Respondent did not make findings that were inconsistent with the evidence, nor did he misstate the applicable reasonable peron test. The Respondent's reasons showed the he grappled with the necessary considerations when he determinded that harassment had taken place. The Respondent's decision also showed that he was aware of the balance to be struck between the Grievor's right to exercise his managerial duties and the concurrent obligation to exercise those duties respectfully. The Commissioner agreed and denied the Grievance.