NC-088 - Harassment

The Appellant presented a harassment complaint (Complaint) against a manager (Alleged Harasser). She indicated that the Alleged Harasser harassed her in several ways. These included performing some of her job functions, treating her rudely and disrespectfully, mistreating others in her presence and directing another member not to communicate with her. This caused her to feel overridden in her job, embarrassed, frustrated, bullied, confused, intimidated and uncomfortable.

The Alleged Harasser provided a written response to the Complaint in which she spoke to each alleged incident of harassment. The Appellant then submitted a comprehensive written reply to the Alleged Harasser's response. The Respondent reviewed both documents. She ultimately held that none of the alleged behaviours met the definition of "harassment" found in policy. She added that she did not need to order a harassment investigation into the behaviours (Decision).

The Appellant appealed the Decision. She did not file a submission despite being invited to do so. In her Statement of Appeal, she indicates that she is appealing the Decision on the grounds that it is clearly unreasonable and based on an error of law. She states that nobody interviewed or spoke to her, that she genuinely was harassed, and that harassment was rampant in her unit. She adds that she left her workplace and later, the RCMP, to avoid harassment and frustration.

The ERC found that the RCMP's omission to interview or speak to the Appellant prior to the Decision did not result in a denial of procedural fairness or a breach of policy in this case. The record includes a lengthy document in which the Appellant had the chance to, and did, reply to the Alleged Harasser's positions, provide context, supply further background and details, discuss related concerns, and include supporting evidence. The Decision was also not clearly unreasonable. The Appellant did not suggest that there was no rational or tenable line of analysis supporting the Decision, or demonstrating that the Decision was clearly irrational. She also did not suggest that the evidence could not support the Decision. Ultimately, the Appellant repeated her belief that she was harassed and that harassment was common in her unit. While an appellant may disagree with a respondent's balancing of evidence, absent a reviewable error, it is not the Commissioner's role on appeal to assess whether a respondent erred simply by performing the function with which the respondent was tasked. Lastly, the Decision was not based on an error of law. The Appellant did not provide any suggestion as to how she believed the Respondent erred in law. The ERC was not prepared to speculate on that point.

It is clear that the Appellant was an extremely dedicated and diligent member of the RCMP who cared deeply about her work. Unfortunately, due to the very limited contents of the appeal, there is little that can be done for her at this stage. The ERC sincerely thanked the Appellant for her long and committed service to Canadians, and wished her well in her future endeavours.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed and the Decision be confirmed.

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

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against the Operations Manager of the Operational Communication Centre (Alleged Harasser) where she is posted.

The Level III Conduct Authority of “X” Division (the Respondent) ruled that the Alleged Harasser’s behaviour did not meet the definition of harassment.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision, contending that it is clearly unreasonable and based on an error of law. She also submits that an investigation should have been conducted into her complaint.

The appeal was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) and in a report containing findings and recommendations, the ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed. The ERC noted that following the filing of the harassment complaint, the Alleged Harasser provided a response to the allegations and the Appellant submitted a reply to the Alleged Harasser’s response, which included providing additional material. The ERC determined that an investigation was therefore not required in this instance, concluding that the Respondent’s decision was not reached in contravention of the applicable principles of procedural fairness, is not clearly unreasonable, and is not tainted by an error of law. The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

The adjudicator concurred with the findings made by the ERC and dismissed the appeal.