NC-080 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against her direct supervisor (Alleged Harasser). She asserted that he omitted to take action against coworkers who mistreated her, ignored her feelings and requests for help, and ultimately contributed to her isolation in the workplace.

Officials elected to put aside the Appellant’s harassment complaint, and instead inquire into whether the Alleged Harasser should be made the subject of a Code of Conduct investigation. After meeting with the Alleged Harasser and reviewing certain materials, they found that he did not treat the Appellant in a “derogatory harassing manner” or contravene the Code of Conduct. The Respondent adopted these findings as her Decision, which was served on the Appellant.

The Appellant presented an appeal roughly four days after the expiration of the 14-day time limit set forth in section 38 of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals) (CSO (Grievances and Appeals)). Upon request, she explained that her appeal was late because:

• the Inspector who served her with the Decision could not say how to pursue recourse;
• she and her Member Representative (MR) thought she had 14 business days to file an appeal;
• her MR was unengaged, and their talks were “fairly unhelpful”; and
• she had to take it upon herself to navigate policy regarding how to present an appeal.

The Respondent took issue with some of the Appellant’s explanations.

The ERC found that the appeal was untimely. Pursuant to section 38 of the CSO (Grievances and Appeals), the Appellant was required to file her appeal within 14 days after the date upon which she was served with the Decision. She did not do so, and there were no exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time pursuant to subsection 43(d) of the CSO (Grievances and Appeals). The ERC and the Commissioner have found that the obligation for initiating and arguing a case rests with a member, and that a lack of familiarity with applicable authorities is not an acceptable reason for omitting to respect a statutory limitation period. The 14-day time limit was not only identified in a CSO and in policy. The “Instructions for Statement of Appeal” attached to the Appellant’s appeal form also specified how long the Appellant had to appeal a decision, and where to find further information about how to do so. If the Appellant was otherwise unsure of her responsibilities, then she could have reached out to another MR who was more responsive, or to the Office of Coordination of Grievances and Appeals (OCGA), for assistance.

The ERC recommended that this appeal be dismissed on the basis that it was initiated after the expiry of the statutory time limit, and an extension of that time limit is not warranted in the circumstances.

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

The Appellant appeals the Respondent’s decision whereby he determined that the alleged harasser did not act in a “derogatory harassing manner” toward the Appellant or contravene the RCMP Code of Conduct.

The appeal was forwarded to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) for review. Upon receiving the appeal, the ERC noted that the Appellant may have submitted her appeal outside of the statutory 14-day time limit. The ERC obtained submissions from the Parties on the issue of time limitation. In a report containing findings and recommendations, issued on October 8, 2021, (NC-2017-015 (NC-080)), the Chair of the ERC, Mr. Charles Randall Smith, recommended that the appeal be dismissed on the basis that it was submitted after the expiration of the statutory time limit, and that an extension of the time limit is not warranted in the circumstances.

Having considered the facts of the matter, the applicable statutory provisions and the relevant jurisprudence, the adjudicator concurred with the findings of the ERC and determined that the appeal was filed after the expiration of the statutory time limit and that a retroactive extension of the time limit was not justified in this instance. The adjudicator dismissed the appeal.