NC-065 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against a superior (Alleged Harasser). The Appellant challenged the decision to remove him from his position temporarily as a result of a Code of Conduct matter. He argued that he was not provided with the opportunity to discuss the reassignment. The Appellant further alleged that he had his access to the email systems removed without any satisfactory explanation.

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 Alleged Harasser was simply performing his managerial responsibilities and the process required in respect to ongoing Code of Conduct investigations.

The Respondent found that the Appellant was not a victim of harassment.

The ERC found that the Respondent’s Decision was not clearly unreasonable. The ERC agreed with the Respondent that there is a mechanism in place that the Appellant should have used to appeal his temporary reassignment. Further, the ERC agreed with the Respondent that the listed allegations, on their face, did not make out a prima facie case of harassment.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

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

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against the Conduct Authority (Alleged Harasser) who ordered his temporary reassignment to another unit, pending a Code of Conduct investigation. Subsequently, the Appellant claimed he did not have meaningful work and stopped receiving divisional emails. The Appellant claimed that the Order of Temporary Reassignment and the inability to access his emails constituted harassment.

The Harassment Reviewer from the Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints (OCHC) advised the Respondent that the complaint had the potential to be resolved informally and recommended the assistance of the Informal Conflict Management Practitioner (ICMP). The Harassment Reviewer further noted that the behaviours of the Alleged Harasser were consistent with his managerial responsibilities.

The parties agreed to participate in an informal resolution process and were referred to ICMP. Over the next six months, the Appellant did not take steps to participate and the Alleged Harasser eventually retired. The Harassment Advisor closed the ICMP process and notified the Respondent of the options to mandate an investigation or render a final decision on the existing information, if sufficient.

The Respondent determined that the Alleged Harasser's behaviour was not consistent with the elements of harassment, since the Alleged Harasser was acting within the scope of his duties as a Conduct Authority. Further, if the Appellant wished to challenge the temporary reassignment, he could have filed an appeal, as authorized by the conduct policy. The Respondent also found there was no indication that the Alleged Harasser was responsible for the Appellant's inability to access internal emails/communications. The Respondent dismissed the complaint without further investigation.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent's decision on the grounds that it was clearly unreasonable. The ERC found the Respondent made no reviewable error 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 and accepted the ERC finding that the Respondent made no reviewable error