Other Appeals (incl. harassment, stoppage of pay, administrative discharge, etc.) - NC-058

NC-058

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against his immediate supervisor, the Alleged Harasser. The Appellant's five allegations alleged that the Alleged Harasser embarrassed and humiliated him in front of his colleagues in respect to a third-party complaint. The Appellant submitted that the Alleged Harasser made him hand over his working files to others, transferred him to another work area, and threatened to have him relocated to a Detachment that would involve three hours of daily driving.

The Appellant's Harassment Form was reviewed by the Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints (OCHC) who advised that the Alleged Harasser was simply performing his managerial duties and that no investigation into the Appellant's complaint was warranted.

The Respondent agreed with the OCHC. Further, he focused on the third-party complaint against the Appellant and inferred that the Appellant's claims of harassment were, in effect, retaliation.

The Respondent found that the Appellant's allegations did not meet the definition of harassment.

The Appellant claimed that the Respondent was biased and that the process was procedurally unfair because no investigation into his complaint was done.

ERC Findings

The ERC found that the Appellant was precluded, on appeal, from raising the issue of bias. The ERC agreed with the Appellant that the decision was speculative in nature in respect to the findings, but most importantly, it was clearly unreasonable in the circumstances because of the absence of a Code of Conduct investigation. The Appellant made allegations, if proven, would clearly fall within the definition of harassment.

ERC Recommendations

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed; that an investigation into the Appellant's complaints be undertaken; that the matter be decided by a different decision-maker; and that a copy of the Final Adjudicator's decision be forwarded to the OCHC.

Commissioner of the RCMP Decision dated February 26, 2021

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

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against his Supervisor, his Line Officer and a colleague, who all work in the same unit. This appeal relates to the complaint against his Supervisor (the Alleged Harasser). The complaints against his Line Officer and colleague are the subject of two other appeals.

A Harassment Reviewer from the Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints (OCHC) reviewed the matter and provided the opinion that the Alleged Harasser's behaviours may be consistent with his delivery of the conduct process and the complaint may be frivolous. The Officer in Charge of the Professional Responsibility Unit from a neighbouring Division, also reviewed the harassment allegations and recommended that a harassment investigation not be mandated. The Respondent subsequently issued a Record of Decision (ROD), concluding that an investigation was not required for him to determine that the Alleged Harasser acted within the scope of his duties and that his actions did not meet the definition of harassment.

The Appellant presented this appeal disputing the Respondent's decision. He argued that the Respondent was biased, and that his decision was procedurally unfair and clearly unreasonable. The ERC found that the Appellant was precluded from raising the issue of bias on appeal, but concluded that the Respondent's decision was clearly unreasonable. The ERC held that the harassment policy requires a decision-maker to mandate an investigation when informal resolution is not possible, and that there was insufficient information to support the Respondent's decision. Consequently, the ERC recommended a harassment investigation be mandated for the Appellant's complaint.

In accordance with paragraph 47(1)(a) of the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals), the Adjudicator dismissed the appeal, finding that the ERC misinterpreted the Respondent's obligation to mandate an investigation. The Adjudicator found that the Respondent's decision was not reached in a manner that contravened the principles of procedural fairness, based on an error of law or clearly unreasonable.

Page details

2022-07-07