NC-063 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint relating to a conversation his wife heard between the Alleged Harasser and a retired member in a public place. The Appellant's wife informed him that the conversation related to a Code of Conduct process he was facing. The Appellant filed a harassment complaint indicating that he felt humiliated and belittled about this, and that a Code of Conduct proceeding should be initiated against the Alleged Harasser. The Respondent found that his complaint did not meet the definition of harassment because the remarks were not directed at the Appellant and it did not occur in the workplace. Consequently, the Respondent chose not to mandate an investigation into the harassment complaint. The Respondent did, however, comment on the nature and the place where the remarks were made and forwarded the matter to a Conduct Authority for review.

The Appellant appealed the decision, but focused on the action that was taken against the Alleged Harasser and said it was insufficient. The Appellant made no further submissions on the merits. His Statement of Appeal did not address the finding of no harassment made by the Respondent. In a brief email to the Office of Coordination of Grievances and Appeals (OCGA), the Appellant reiterated that the Alleged Harasser's action had caused him further hardship, which met the definition of harassment.

The ERC found that the Appellant did not have standing to appeal the conduct measure imposed on the Alleged Harasser in a separate process. As the Appellant had not provided further arguments relating to the Respondent's decision, there was no basis for the ERC to review the Respondent's Decision in terms of statutory appellate grounds of review.

The ERC recommended the appeal be dismissed.

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

The Appellant filed a Harassment Complaint against his detachment commander (the Alleged Harasser) after being notified by his wife that she overheard him while off-duty, talking to a retired member about the Appellant's Code of Conduct investigation.

A Harassment Reviewer from the Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints (OCHC), reviewed the matter and advised the Respondent that the Alleged Harasser's behaviour may not be consistent with the elements of harassment, since the remarks were not directed to him, and did not occur at the location of the workplace. On that basis, the Respondent issued a decision that the behaviour did not constitute harassment and no investigation was ordered. However, having determined the conduct was inappropriate, the Respondent referred the matter to the Conduct Authority. Subsequently, the Alleged Harasser was issued a negative 1004, having admitted the behaviour was inappropriate. The Appellant filed an appeal of the Respondent's decision, seeking a review of the conduct process, on the basis that the sanctions imposed on the Alleged Harasser were inadequate. The Appellant made no submission relating to any errors in the Respondent's decision respecting his Harassment Complaint. The Appellant did not request an investigation of his Harassment Complaint, nor did he make any argument that the Respondent's finding was incorrect in concluding that the behaviour was not harassment. The Respondent raised the preliminary issue of standing, advising that the redress sought, consisting of an appeal of the conduct process, did not apply to the Respondent's decision and the conduct process was a separate process from the investigation and resolution of harassment complaints. The Appellant insisted by email he was attempting to appeal both, but made no submission, despite follow up by the OCGA.

The ERC found the Appellant had no standing and recommended the appeal be dismissed.

In accordance with paragraph 47(1)(a) of the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals), the Adjudicator dismissed the appeal, having found that the Appellant did not establish that the Respondent's decision was contrary to the principles of procedural fairness, based on an error of law or clearly unreasonable. The Adjudicator also accepted the ERC finding that the Appellant does not have standing to dispute the conduct process involving the Alleged Harasser.

The Adjudicator emphasized that spreading gossip about a fellow member or employee, could meet the definition of harassment. Although gossip by its nature is not directly received by a complainant, the complainant is directly impacted, as its target. Even if the conduct in question does not occur at an RCMP facility or event, by virtue of the working relationships, it impacts the workplace. The RCMP takes harassment complaints seriously, including allegations that an employee or member has been the victim of gossip, when it has been disseminated by a coworker or superior, in a public space. The RCMP encourages victims of harassment to come forward.