NC-074 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint with the Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints (OCHC). In the complaint, the Appellant alleges that, as he was approaching retirement, the Alleged Harasser initiated his transfer to another section to a position inferior to his qualifications. The OCHC reviewer recommended that a limited investigation be mandated. However, the Respondent did not mandate an investigation and rendered his decision concluding that the Appellant's transfer was not harassment and the complaint should have been handled within a grievance process.

On appeal, the Appellant alleged that a thorough investigation was not conducted: neither he nor the Alleged Harasser nor the potential witness were interviewed. He submits that an investigation would have enabled the Respondent to have a more complete understanding of the facts of the case.

The ERC found that the Respondent's decision not to mandate an investigation was clearly unreasonable because the facts before the Respondent did not provide a complete version of what had happened. Interviews with the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser and a witness, as well as documentary evidence, might have enabled the Respondent to better assess the allegations of harassment.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed and that the matter be remitted to a new decision-maker for a new decision with the direction to mandate an investigation into the Appellant's complaint, which should include interviews with the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser and the potential witness.

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

[Translation]

While assigned to "X" Division, the Appellant filed a harassment complaint against the Officer in Charge of the unit in which he was working at the time. The Appellant alleged that the Alleged Harasser orchestrated his transfer to a position with requirements below his skills and experience as he was approaching retirement.

The Respondent did not mandate an investigation and dismissed the complaint, finding that the alleged behaviour did not amount to harassment of the Appellant.

The Appellant felt that the Respondent's decision was contrary to applicable principles of procedural fairness and clearly unreasonable and appealed on the ground that the Respondent failed to mandate an investigation to gather the evidence.

The file was referred to the ERC. The ERC first determined that the documents submitted by the Appellant on appeal were admissible. After reviewing the grounds of appeal, the ERC found that the Respondent should have mandated an investigation since some allegations made by the Appellant needed to be verified. The ERC found that the failure to mandate an investigation resulted in the Respondent not obtaining relevant information, making the decision clearly unreasonable. The ERC therefore recommended that the appeal be allowed.

The Adjudicator found that the Respondent should indeed have pursued an investigation to obtain a minimum amount of information and that failing to do so meant that the decision as to whether harassment had occurred on a balance of probabilities was not fully informed. The Adjudicator determined that this omission rendered the decision clearly unreasonable and allowed the appeal. The Adjudicator also found that the documents submitted by the Appellant on appeal were admissible.

Given the retirement of the Alleged Harasser and the complainant, and the time that has elapsed since the complaint was filed, the Adjudicator offers the complainant an apology on behalf of the RCMP for the failure to properly investigate and resolve his harassment complaint.