NC-027 - Harassment

The Appellant applied for a position with specialized duties but was unsuccessful in the selection process. He grieved, and his grievance was denied on the merits at Level I, but was successful at Level II. The remedy awarded at Level II was a “Redress Order.” The Redress Order provided a mechanism to take place in the event the Appellant applied for future similar positions. The Appellant consequently applied for a number of these positions and was unsuccessful in those selection processes.

The Appellant alleged that the Redress Order was not followed, and that the decision-maker in his selection processes should have been someone other than the Alleged Harasser. Further, he submitted that the Alleged Harasser retrieved, without authority, “personal information” as defined by the Privacy Act relating to him from RCMP data banks and disclosed this information and some other personal information to the individual the Appellant claims should have made the decisions regarding the staffing of the positions. The Appellant further submitted that, by doing so the Alleged Harasser affected his chances of being selected for these kinds of positions in the future.

The Appellant also complained that the Alleged Harasser communicated with him in respect of the outcome of his applications, causing him embarrassment and humiliation. In the Appellant’s view, the Alleged Harasser had no right to do so and was trying to convince him not to apply for future posts. In the Appellant’s view, the Alleged Harasser was purposely trying to intimidate, humiliate and belittle him and consequently, harassed him.

The Level I Adjudicator found that no harassment took place and that the Alleged Harasser was simply performing duties associated with the position the Alleged Harasser was holding at the time and that correspondence written to the Appellant by the Alleged Harasser was required and in compliance with RCMP policies.

The ERC addressed whether or not the Level I Decision was or was not clearly unreasonable. To do so, the ERC had to interpret the Redress Order and apply it to the Alleged Harasser’s conduct. The ERC found that the Redress Order signed by a Level II Adjudicator was paramount and was narrowly interpreted by the Alleged Harasser. The ERC agreed with the Appellant that someone other than the Alleged Harasser was the decision-maker regarding his applications. The ERC did however, find that there still remained an administrative supportive role for the Alleged Harasser to participate in the process due to his or her position at the time. The ERC closely examined the email sent to the Appellant and found it helpful, not humiliating. The Alleged Harasser had every right to share personal information of the Appellant with the individual she shared the information with as this information was relevant to the positions applied for. There was no evidence presented to the ERC that the Alleged Harasser had harmed the Appellant in any way in regard to future applications he may plan on submitting. The ERC found no evidence of harassment and found that the Level I Decision was not clearly unreasonable.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner or her Designated Level II Adjudicator deny the appeal.

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

The Appellant applied for four International Liaison Officer (ILO) positions. During the structured interview stage, the Appellant disclosed he had a history of discipline. The interviewers drafted a memorandum to the Selecting Line Officer (SLO) which stated that the Appellant did not have the experience necessary to be considered for an ILO position and that they were concerned about his disclosure of previous discipline. The SLO advised the Designated Manager for Human Relations (DMHR) that he could not support the Appellant being considered for the ILO positions for the reasons identified in the memorandum provided by the interviewers. The DMHR considered the SLO rationale and drafted an email explaining to the Appellant that he was not the selected candidate for any of the ILO positions he had applied to. The DMHR included the SLO’s concerns in her email, but also raised her concerns about references the Appellant had made in a submission to the DMHR concerning his discipline. The DMHR’s email stated that the Appellant would not be considered for the ILO positions because he did not have the necessary experience. The email suggested the Appellant could address his lack of experience by seeking a transfer, but she raised her concern that the Appellant’s comments to her about his discipline did not appear to accept responsibility for his actions. The DMHR also said that she did not see how the Appellant could overcome the impact of his prior discipline in any future application for an ILO position. The DMHR’s email also raised concerns about the Appellant’s references to personal difficulties and she pointed out that many ILO positions were located in hardship postings. The DMHR sent a copy of this email to the SLO after she provided it to the Appellant.

The Appellant presented a harassment complaint against the DMHR arguing that it was not necessary for her to share his disclosures of his personal difficulties with the SLO and that the Appellant had humiliated him by doing so. The Respondent reviewed the harassment complaint and found that the DMHR’s actions were consistent with her responsibilities within the staffing process, which allowed her to consult the SLO and others in the DMHR’s decision-making process. The Appellant argued that the Respondent’s decision was clearly unreasonable and did not take into account that the DMHR did not need to share the details of the Appellant’s personal difficulties with the SLO and it was inappropriate for her to do so. The ERC reviewed the submissions and found that the Respondent’s decision was not clearly unreasonable as the email written by the DMHR was accurate and sending it to both the Appellant and the SLO was consistent with the DMHR’s role in this staffing process. The Adjudicator found that while the DMHR was entitled to consult the SLO about information relating to disclosures from the Appellant as part of her decision-making process, in this situation she had already made her decision when she shared the email with the SLO so it was not necessary for her to do so at that time. However, the Adjudicator noted that the Appellant’s information was provided for the staffing process, and was only used in that context. The Adjudicator found that even if the DMHR made a mistake, it was not part of a pattern of improper conduct and was not severe enough to constitute harassment. The Adjudicator agreed with the ERC’s findings for different reasons. The appeal was dismissed.