NC-070 - Harassment

The Appellant was the subject member for several Code of Conduct investigations. She filed a harassment complaint against a member of the Professional Responsibility Unit (Alleged Harasser). The Appellant alleged that the manner in which the Alleged Harasser administered the investigation into her conduct and the manner in which he interacted with her in this time were harassing in nature. More specifically, she alleged that the Alleged Harasser was aware that a witness had provided false information, yet he refused to provide her with any information relating to this matter and did not order that a new statement be obtained from the witness. The Appellant also alleged that the Alleged Harasser threatened her with another Code of Conduct breach, as she had contacted the witness herself. Finally, the Appellant also contended that a third party, who reported to the Alleged Harasser, was present during a conduct meeting and that it was intimidating and embarrassing.

The Respondent issued a written decision finding that the Alleged Harasser acted within the scope of his duties and that the alleged conduct did not meet the applicable definition of harassment. He declined to order a harassment investigation. The Respondent also concluded that all of the points set out in Allegations 1 and 3 were related to the conduct process.

The Appellant appealed the decision, and she claimed that an investigation into her harassment complaint should be conducted. The Appellant claimed that harassment could still exist in a conduct matter.

The ERC found that the Respondent's decision was not clearly unreasonable. In its view, the Respondent correctly found that the matters that were raised in Allegations 1 and 3 were related to the conduct proceedings and could have been or can be appealed in the form of a conduct appeal. In regards to Allegation 2, the ERC found that the Respondent had sufficient information to render a decision without an investigation. It further found that the Respondent did not err in finding that the allegation did not meet the definition of harassment. The Respondent had found that the email was not threatening in nature, but explained the possible consequence of contacting a witness.

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 the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the "X" Division Professional Responsibility Unit, alleging that he harassed her during the course of a conduct process in which she was the subject member.

Upon a review of the Code of Conduct investigator's disclosure package, the Appellant discovered a witness statement that she viewed as false. The Appellant emailed the witness, who was a fellow member, to provide her version of events and to ask clarifying questions.

The Alleged Harasser learned of the Appellant's contact with the witness and sent the Appellant an email informing her that contacting the witness may be perceived as "witness tampering and a potential further breach of the RCMP Act". He advised her to refrain from contacting further witnesses. The Appellant replied that her Member Workplace Advisor (MWA) advised her that she could contact witnesses during the conduct process and asked for the policy section that prohibited her from doing so. The Alleged Harasser did not reply to the Appellant, but he did communicate the answer to the MWA. At the subsequent conduct meeting, a conduct advisor, who works in the Alleged Harasser's office, was present to take notes for the Conduct Authority.

The Appellant filed a Harassment Complaint, alleging that the aforementioned incidents were harassment and she felt threatened and intimidated by the presence of the conduct advisor at her conduct meeting. She also claimed the Alleged Harasser failed to disclose new information to her, which her MWA requested. The Respondent issued a Record of Decision, finding that an investigation was not required to determine that the Alleged Harasser was acting within the scope of his duties and that his actions did not meet the definition of harassment.

The Appellant presented an appeal disputing the Respondent's decision. The ERC found that 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, finding that the Respondent's decision was not reached in a manner that contravened the principles of procedural fairness, was not based on an error of law, nor was it clearly unreasonable.