NC-032 - Harassment

The Appellant, a Civilian Member, was hired as a manager on a team involved in an Information Technology (IT) project. The relationship between the Appellant and the director to whom she reported (Alleged Harasser) soon became difficult. From the Appellant's perspective, the Alleged Harasser would sometimes raise his voice with her, rudely question her decisions, micro-manage her and jeopardize her ability to do her work. From the Alleged Harasser's perspective, the Appellant had poor communication skills, would not take appropriate direction and had been the subject of significant concerns by stakeholders working on the project. Meetings took place with the Appellant to discuss her performance.

The Appellant eventually left the Force and lodged a harassment complaint (Complaint) against the Alleged Harasser. The ensuing harassment investigation looked at multiple concerns raised in the Complaint, which included: (i) the manner in which the Appellant's initial orientation had taken place; (ii) instances in which the Alleged Harasser allegedly raised his voice; (iii) alleged inappropriate comments and behavior by the Alleged Harasser, and; (iv) the manner in which the Alleged Harasser had managed operational and performance issues involving the Appellant. Following the investigation, the Respondent determined that the Complaint was not established. The Appellant lodged an appeal of the Respondent's Decision. The Appellant principally argued that the Respondent had misconstrued the facts in determining that no harassment had occurred and that further witnesses should have been interviewed.

The ERC indicated that the Respondent, as a decision-maker in the harassment investigation and resolution process, was obligated to assess the evidence and apply to it the legal test for determining whether harassment had occurred. In ascertaining whether the Respondent's decision in that regard was clearly unreasonable for the purposes of subsection 47(3) of the CSO (Grievances and Appeals), the ERC considered whether the Decision revealed any manifest and determinative errors.

The ERC reviewed the Respondent's findings with respect to the manner in which the Appellant's initial orientation had taken place. The Appellant's concerns revolved around the Alleged Harasser's inability to attend a planned meeting with the Appellant on her first day, and that the Alleged Harasser had not himself formally oriented the Appellant. There was no reason to interfere with the Respondent's findings that while these events may have been unfortunate from the Appellant's perspective, the Alleged Harasser's actions surrounding the Appellant's work orientation did not amount to harassment.

The ERC also found no reason to interfere with the Respondent's finding that the record did not support allegations of yelling by the Alleged Harasser towards the Appellant. The Respondent's reasons referred to the evidence of the Appellant and Alleged Harasser as well as the evidence of other witnesses which called into question the accuracy of the Appellant's depiction of events and which did not support these allegations. The ERC further found that there was no basis to interfere with the Respondent's assessment of alleged inappropriate comments and behavior by the Alleged Harasser. The Respondent had noted that some of these incidents were not supported by independent witnesses, and that others could not reasonably be construed as harassment given the context in which they had taken place. In addition, the Respondent's reasons, when read as a whole alongside evidence in the record, demonstrated an overall concern with the Appellant's evidence which explained why he would not have accepted the Appellant's version of events regarding some of these incidents. Further, the ERC examined the Respondent's assessment of allegations that the Alleged Harasser had micro-managed operational issues, had been overly critical of the Appellant in order to jeopardize her performance and had conducted himself improperly during two performance-related meetings. The ERC found no reason to overturn the Respondent's findings that while frustration, performance issues and a personality conflict permeated the interactions between the Appellant and Alleged Harasser, the Alleged Harasser had exercised his managerial authority legitimately in dealing with operational and performance issues involving the Appellant, and that his actions were not improper. The Respondent's findings in that regard were supported by the record. Finally, the ERC considered whether the failure to interview certain individuals regarding some of the above-noted allegations amounted to a breach of procedural fairness. In the ERC's view, the evidence of these witnesses was not obviously crucial to understanding the events, as a result of which there was no such breach.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

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

The Appellant was a Civilian Member hired to work as a manager on a team involving an Information Technology (IT) project. She began working for the RCMP on March 28, 2011. The Appellant’s supervisor (Alleged Harasser) raised concerns in relation to the Appellant’s ability to perform her duties. A performance management process was initiated, but prior to it proceeding the Appellant resigned. The Appellant resigned on July 22, 2011, but continued to be paid until December 28, 2011, in accordance with a resignation package.

On January 11, 2012, the RCMP received the Appellant’s Exit Questionnaire in which she complained of harassment, discrimination and bullying related to the manner in which the Alleged Harasser managed her. On November 14, 2014, the Appellant lodged a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser. The Respondent ordered a harassment investigation on May 4, 2015, but found that the allegations had not been established.

The Appellant disagrees and is appealing the Respondent’s decision. This appeal was reviewed by the ERC. The ERC recommended that this appeal should be dismissed on the merits. The Adjudicator agreed with the ERC recommendation and adopted the rationale provided by the ERC in support of that recommendation.

The appeal was dismissed.

While not forming part of the Adjudicator’s decision – because the Appellant had not been provided an opportunity to comment on these concerns – the Adjudicator’s analysis also commented on two other issues. First, the Adjudicator questioned whether the Appellant had standing to present an appeal of the Respondent’s decision as she was no longer a member of the RCMP when she presented this appeal. Second, the Adjudicator raised concerns about the harassment investigation being ordered without the Respondent providing any rationale to demonstrate there were exceptional circumstances to justify this action when over a year had passed since the last alleged incident of harassment.