NC-016 - Harassment

The Appellant refused to be reassigned to a new position within the specialized project he was assigned to, because it would result in him working alongside a member with whom he had a conflict. The Appellant was ultimately removed from the project by the project supervisor. The Appellant's Staff Relations Representative (SRR) asked the Alleged Harasser, whose functions included overseeing the specialized project, to look into the circumstances surrounding the Appellant's removal. The Alleged Harasser conducted a fact-finding exercise in the course of which he spoke to various individuals involved in the project. Although the Alleged Harasser was given a timeline of events based on the Appellant's perspective, his attempts to meet in person with the Appellant were unsuccessful. The Alleged Harasser then wrote an email to the SRR explaining what he had learned as a result of his fact-finding. In this email, the Alleged Harasser referred to concerns raised by individuals regarding the Appellant's behavior and demeanor on the project. The Alleged Harasser also acknowledged that the timeline raised concerns regarding other members involved in the project which needed to be addressed. The Appellant subsequently lodged a harassment complaint (Complaint) against the Alleged Harasser, claiming that the Alleged Harasser had lacked the objectivity to conduct the fact-finding fairly. He further claimed that the Alleged Harasser's email to the SRR had depicted relevant events in a one-sided and prejudicial manner. Following an investigation, the Respondent concluded that the Complaint was not established (Decision). The Appellant lodged an appeal of the Decision. He claims that the investigation was too restrictive. He further maintains that the Respondent failed to properly address the Appellant's concerns regarding the Alleged Harasser's lack of objectivity and the allegedly one-sided and prejudicial email.

The ERC disagreed with the Appellant's positions on appeal. The harassment investigation addressed the concerns which had been raised by the Appellant in his Complaint. As for an alleged lack of objectivity by the Alleged Harasser, the Respondent had properly noted that the fact-finding exercise, which was not a harassment investigation, had been undertaken within the Alleged Harasser's managerial authority. Within that context, the existence of supervisory relationships between the Alleged Harasser and individuals involved in the project, as well as the Alleged Harasser's awareness of grievances against him by the Appellant which he believed would be withdrawn, did not raise concerns of a conflict of interest. In addition, the Respondent had properly addressed the Appellant's concerns of prejudicial and one-sided fact-finding by the Alleged Harasser. In this regard, the Respondent found that the Alleged Harasser's email was a synopsis of what had transpired from the fact-finding, without fully understanding the Appellant's concerns given the inability to meet in person. While the Respondent might have directed further investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Appellant's removal, this would not have assisted the Respondent in deciding whether the Alleged Harasser's conduct at the time of drafting his email to the SRR, based on the information he had, amounted to harassment.

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, an investigator working on a specialized project, refused to be reassigned to a new position because it would result in him working for a member with whom he had a conflict. The Appellant was ultimately removed from the project by the project supervisor. The Appellant's Staff Relations Representative (SRR) asked the Alleged Harasser, whose functions included overseeing the specialized project, to look into the circumstances surrounding the Appellant's removal. The Alleged Harasser conducted a fact-finding exercise in the course of which he spoke to various individuals involved in the project. Although the Alleged Harasser was given a timeline of events (New Allegations) based on the Appellant's perspective, the Appellant refused to meet with the Alleged Harasser to provide the Appellant's perspective on the workplace conflict he was reporting. The Appellant's SRR asked the Alleged Harasser for a report on the outcome of the inquiries being made by the Alleged Harasser.

The Alleged Harasser made preliminary inquiries and then wrote an email to the Appellant's SRR explaining what he had learned as a result of his fact-finding. In this email, the Alleged Harasser stated that he had not made any final decisions as he had not had an opportunity to speak to the Appellant yet. The Alleged Harasser's email referred to concerns raised by individuals regarding the Appellant's behavior and demeanor on the project. The Alleged Harasser acknowledged that the Appellant's timeline of events raised concerns regarding other members involved in the project which still needed to be addressed. The Alleged Harasser asked the Appellant's SRR for clarification of several points so the Alleged Harasser could determine what administrative processes he needed to initiate to address the Appellant's concerns.

The Appellant subsequently lodged a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser, claiming that the Alleged Harasser had improperly conducted a harassment investigation and lacked the objectivity to do so. He further claimed that the Alleged Harasser's email to the SRR had caused the Appellant harm as it depicted relevant events in a one-sided and prejudicial manner. Following an investigation, the Respondent found that the Alleged Harasser's inquiries were not a harassment investigation, they were a preliminary step which - as a manager - the Alleged Harasser was required to take in order to determine how to address the concerns which the Appellant had raised. As the Alleged Harasser's actions reflected his obligations as a manager, the Respondent concluded that the harassment complaint was not established (Decision).

The Appellant lodged an appeal of the Decision. He claims that the scope of the investigation was too restrictive. He further maintains that the Respondent failed to properly address the Appellant's concerns regarding the Alleged Harasser's lack of objectivity and the allegedly one-sided and prejudicial email which was sent to the Appellant's SRR. The ERC found that the investigation reflected the substance of the Appellant's harassment complaint. The ERC also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Respondent's decision was clearly unreasonable or rendered in a manner which was procedurally unfair.

The Adjudicator agreed with the ERC's findings. The Appeal was dismissed.