G-789 – Harassment

In the summer of 2009, the Grievor applied for a promotion. The Respondent was the Selecting Line Officer (SLO) responsible for recommending a candidate to the person who had the authority to decide the outcome of the promotional process. In June 2009, the Grievor filed a harassment complaint against three members of the Force, including the Respondent. Two months later, the Grievor was informed that he was not selected for the promotion and he filed a grievance as a result. The Grievor’s position was that the Respondent should have recused himself as SLO because of his involvement in the harassment complaint. In the Grievor’s opinion, the Respondent’s failure to do so amounted to a conflict of interest. 

In February 2014, the Grievor requested that the grievance be put in abeyance given his off-duty sick status. The Record is silent for the period of 2014 to 2020. In November 2020, the Grievor confirmed that he wanted to proceed with his grievance.

The level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, concluding that the Grievor failed to meet his burden in establishing that the Respondent’s decision not to recuse himself as SLO was contrary to applicable legislation and policy.

The ERC determined that it was warranted, based on relevant case law, to address the Grievor’s conflict of interest argument by discussing whether the Respondent’s failure to recuse himself gave rise to an apprehension of bias. The ERC found that the evidence did not support the Grievor’s position. The ERC further found that the Grievor had the onus of raising any concern with the Respondent’s participation in the selection process which he failed to do. The Committee also observed that the Grievor failed to raise the issue of bias at the first practical opportunity which in turn amounted to a waiver by the Grievor of his right to challenge the Respondent’s failure to recuse himself on that ground. For these reasons, the ERC concluded that the test for bias had not been met and resultantly, that the Grievor had failed to demonstrate that the Respondent’s decision to fulfill his role as SLO in the selection process at issue was not contrary to applicable legislation and policy.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance. 

The Commissioner's decision as summarized by his office is as follows:

The Grievor participated in a non-commissioned officer promotion process. The Respondent was responsible for recommending the successful candidate. Though the Grievor did not object to the Respondent's involvement at the time, after the selection was made, the Grievor presented this Grievance stating that the Respondent ought to have removed himself from the process due to a conflict of interest. At Level I, the adjudicator found that the Grievor failed to establish an inconsistent application of policy or law. The matter was referred to the External Review Committee (ERC) who recommended thi s Grievance be dismissed. The Commissioner concurred with the Level I adjudicator and the ERC and dismissed the Grievance.