NC-010 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a Harassment Complaint alleging that his supervisor (Alleged Harasser) had failed to adequately shield him from a peer with whom he had experienced conflict, insensitively questioned why he was not over the conflict, tried to undermine his position in another complaint process and generally fostered a disrespectful working environment. Following an investigation, the Respondent concluded that the Harassment Complaint was not established (Decision). The Appellant furnished a timely appeal of the Decision. He argued that the Respondent erred in his evaluation of harassment allegations and certain evidence, erred in considering the supervisory responsibilities of the Alleged Harasser to justify the Alleged Harasser's actions and violated the Appellant's right to procedural fairness by referencing in the Decision a report that had not been disclosed to the Appellant.

The ERC disagreed with the Appellant's positions on appeal. The Respondent did not err in his assessment of the harassment allegations. Although the Respondent failed to consider the allegations on a holistic or cumulative basis, this is not an error in cases, like the present one, where it is reasonably determined that the conduct set forth in each allegation was neither inappropriate nor offensive. The Respondent also did not err in his evaluation of certain evidence. A number of the findings the Appellant challenged in this regard were ancillary to the conclusions on the Allegations or misapprehended by the Appellant and none of them gave rise to a manifest and determinative error. Furthermore, the Respondent did not err by considering the supervisory obligations of the Alleged Harasser as part of an assessment of the allegations. The interactions which underpinned the Allegations derived directly from the Alleged Harasser's position as the detachment commander and the Respondent was within his rights, pursuant to the RCMP Harassment Policy, to assess those interactions in the context of the Alleged Harasser's managerial responsibilities. Moreover, while the Respondent should not have referenced in the Decision a report that was never disclosed to the Appellant, the report was discussed only in an ancillary segment of the Decision and clearly was not relied on by the Respondent in making his findings and conclusions about the Allegations. A reconsideration of the Harassment Complaint that ignored the existence of the report would not have resulted in a different set of conclusions.

The ERC recommended to the Adjudicator that he or she dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the Respondent.

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

The Appellant challenged a decision that found the Appellant's complaint of harassment was not established. The Appellant raised four grounds of appeal: the Respondent erred in considering the allegations separately and not holistically; the Respondent erred in considering the Alleged Harasser's supervisory responsibilities in justifying the Alleged Harasser's conduct; the Respondent breached the Appellant's right to procedural fairness by referring to a report that the Appellant did not have an opportunity to address; and, the Respondent erred in his consideration of the evidence. The Appellant was served the Record of Decision on October 24, 2015, and presented his appeal on November 5, 2015.

The Appeal Adjudicator accepted the RCMP External Review Committee's recommendation, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision on appeal pursuant to paragraph 47(1)(a) of the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals).