NC-084 - Harassment

The facts in this case are sparse. As a result of four complaints made against the Appellant, his manager, (the Alleged Harasser), conducted a fact-finding exercise. The Alleged Harasser informed the Appellant that he had received these complaints and would be looking into them. At that time, the Alleged Harasser did not provide the Appellant with copies of the four complaints nor did he explain in any detail the nature of those complaints. The Appellant strongly objected in respect to the Alleged Harasser's decision to look into these matters; the review took too long which affected his stress and mental health both in the workplace and at home; and the Appellant felt that the review was one-sided because he was not interviewed at the time.

The Appellant then filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser for initiating the fact-finding exercise which ballooned into 11 complaints and eventually a Code of Conduct investigation.

The Respondent decision-maker found that the allegations did not meet the definition of harassment because they were part of the supervisor's responsibilities. Moreover, the Appellant would have an opportunity to raise these issues within the conduct process. In light of this, the Respondent decided that it was unnecessary to conduct an investigation.

The ERC made it clear that harassment could occur regardless if a manager is conducting his or her duties. In this case, however, the ERC found that the Respondent did not err in finding that the conduct/behaviours did not fall within the definition of harassment. Having so found, the Respondent's decision not to mandate an investigation was not clearly unreasonable.

The ERC found that the Alleged Harasser was addressing the complaints received because it was required as part of his responsibilities, and failure to do so could have resulted in a Code of Conduct investigation against him. The ERC also noted that the issues raised in the Appellant's complaints regarding procedural fairness within the investigation should be raised within the conduct process.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the appeal.

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

The Appellant appeals a finding made by the Respondent that the Alleged Harasser’s behaviour did not meet the definition of harassment. The Appellant contends that the decision was reached in a manner that contravenes the applicable principles of procedural fairness, was based on an error of law, and is clearly unreasonable. The Appellant requests that a thorough investigation be conducted and his harassment complaint be upheld.

This appeal was forwarded to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee (ERC) for a Recommendation. The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

The adjudicator found that the fact that an investigation was not mandated in this case did not amount to a breach of procedural fairness, given the specific particulars that are alleged in this matter. The adjudicator did not find that the Respondent’s decision was tainted by an error of law, nor that it was clearly unreasonable. As such, the adjudicator dismissed the appeal.