NC-064 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against her superior (Alleged Harasser). The Appellant claimed that the Alleged Harasser was not providing the Appellant with sufficient support and training and it was reported to her by her immediate supervisor that the Alleged Harasser was keeping an eye on her. Further, the Alleged Harasser contacted the Appellant, who was Off Duty Sick (ODS), at the time and directed her to continue completing her files.

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint. The Office of the Coordination of Harassment Complaints (OCHC) recommended a limited investigation.

The Respondent decided not to conduct a Code of Conduct investigation into the harassment complaint on the basis that the allegations did not meet the definition of harassment. The Respondent found that the Alleged Harasser was simply performing his managerial duties. The Appellant listed witnesses and had stated that she had supplemental documentary evidence that were ultimately not addressed.

The ERC found that the Respondent’s Decision was clearly unreasonable. The Respondent erred in not mandating an investigation. Contrary to the Administration Manual XII.8 (Investigation and Resolution of Harassment Complaints), the Appellant was not provided with the opportunity to provide her supplemental information, although she had indicated to the OCHC that such information existed.

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

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

The Appellant filed three harassment complaints against supervisors/management at her detachment. This appeal relates to the harassment complaint filed February 27, 2018, against the Appellant's Line Officer (the Alleged Harasser). The Appellant detailed five incidents on her Form 3919 – Harassment Complaint.

A Harassment Reviewer from the Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints (OCHC) reviewed the matter and recommended that if an investigation is mandated, that it be limited to "initially" interviewing the Appellant and Alleged Harasser. The Reviewer added that the Respondent may render a Record of Decision (ROD) once satisfied there is sufficient evidence to make a finding. The Respondent found that there was sufficient information, without mandating an investigation, to determine the Alleged Harasser's behaviour did not meet the definition of harassment.

In July 2018, the Appellant received the Respondent's ROD and presented this appeal stating the decision was reached in a manner that contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness and is clearly unreasonable. She explained that the Form 3919 did not allow her to describe the full scope of her harassment, so she documented 56 pages of events and collected an additional 44 pages of supporting documents that she wished to include, but the Harassment Reviewer told her it would not be accepted. She argued she was not given an opportunity to provide this information for the Respondent's consideration as per Administrative Manual (AM) XII.8 section 5.7.1.3 that states a complainant can expect to be provided with an opportunity by the OCHC to include supplemental information.

The ERC agreed with the Appellant that section 5.7.1.3 was not adhered to and that an investigation was required. The ERC wrote "[t]he circumstances and details in respect to these allegations remains to this day unknown and to make a finding 'with certainty' that harassment did not take place is clearly unreasonable". Consequently, the ERC recommended the decision be set aside and an investigation be mandated into the Appellant's allegations.

In accordance with paragraph 47(1)(b) of the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals), the Adjudicator allowed the appeal, finding that the Respondent's decision was clearly unreasonable. The Adjudicator directed for the current Commanding Officer of "X" Division to review the supplementary information referenced by the Appellant, and proceed in accordance with the policies in effect at the time.