NC-069 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against his then supervisor (the Alleged Harasser) claiming that the latter sent him three texts that were profane. The Appellant also claimed that the Alleged Harasser made it known to other RCMP members that the Appellant was under a Code of Conduct investigation. Finally, the Appellant claimed that the Alleged Harasser lied to investigators in respect to that investigation.

The Respondent did not order a Code of Conduct investigation into the Appellant's complaint. The Respondent determined that it was unnecessary to conduct an investigation because she had all of the information required to make a decision. She found that the allegations were not established. The Respondent found that these harassment complaints were filed in retaliation for the Code of Conduct matter. Although she found that the expletives sent by text to the Appellant were unprofessional, all of the circumstances surrounding these texts had to be taken into consideration. She determined that the Appellant himself triggered the response of the Alleged Harasser. Although these texts did not constitute harassment, the Respondent indicated that she had addressed the Alleged Harasser's comments through performance management.

The Respondent found that, with respect to the harassment complaint that the Alleged Harasser divulged to others that there was an ongoing Code of Conduct investigation against the Appellant, that this complaint was in fact filed in retaliation for the Alleged Harasser's statement given to Code of Conduct investigators.

The ERC agreed with the Respondent that there was sufficient information in the record to address all three harassment complaints and that an investigation was not warranted.

The ERC agreed with the Respondent that the contextual element was important when considering whether there was harassment. The ERC agreed with the Respondent that the Appellant played a role in the reaction, while unprofessional, of the Alleged Harasser. The ERC agreed that with respect to the texts, that no harassment took place.

In respect to the second allegation that the Alleged Harasser allegedly told other RCMP members of an ongoing Code of Conduct investigation against the Appellant, the ERC agreed that this specific complaint was filed as retaliation for the Alleged Harasser giving a statement to investigators.

Finally, in relation to the third harassment allegation that the Alleged Harasser lied to Code of Conduct investigators, the ERC found that this allegation should be addressed in the conduct proceedings, not within a harassment complaint.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

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

The Appellant lodged a harassment complaint against his past supervisor (Alleged Harasser) for texting him profanities, disclosing to another member the Appellant was going to undergo a Code of Conduct process, and allegedly lying in the Appellant's Code of Conduct process.

The Code of Conduct against the Appellant stems from an incident he orchestrated involving a member of the public (Citizen) and the Alleged Harasser. While dealing with this Citizen, the Appellant advised her that she would be receiving an award from the Alleged Harasser. Unbeknownst to the Alleged Harasser, the Citizen showed up at a time and place set by the Appellant to receive her award from the Alleged Harasser who had to explain to the Citizen that she was not receiving an award. The Citizen became visibly upset. The Alleged Harasser texted the Appellant, who had since transferred to another Division, and reprimanded him using foul language. The Alleged Harasser later admitted his response was inappropriate and unprofessional. On the date of the incident, the Alleged Harasser advised his Inspector of the incident and considered whether to issue a Form 1004. The Citizen made a public complaint against the Appellant, which resulted in the Code of Conduct investigation. Almost one year after the incident, the Appellant received a reprimand for his conduct. A few days later, the Appellant filed the harassment complaint.

The harassment reviewer for the Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints reviewed the matter and recommended that, if an investigation is mandated, it should be limited to interviewing the parties only and once the decision-maker was satisfied that there was sufficient information, the investigation could cease and a Record of Decision could be issued. The Respondent found that an investigation was not required, as the Alleged Harasser admitted to sending the texts, and the information was sufficient to determine harassment was not established, and the complaint was retaliatory. The Appellant filed an appeal. The ERC found neither breaches of procedural fairness, nor errors of law, and determined that the decision was not clearly unreasonable. The ERC 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 Respondent's decision was not reached in a manner that contravened the principles of procedural fairness, contained no error of law, and is not clearly unreasonable. The Adjudicator also agreed, when considered in context, that the allegations did not constitute harassment.