NC-090 - Harassment

The Appellant presented a harassment complaint (Complaint) against a former colleague, the Alleged Harasser. The Appellant was seeking a promotion within the Alleged Harasser’s unit and was corresponding with the Alleged Harasser regarding the opportunity. As the correspondence was ongoing, the Alleged Harasser accidentally sent the Appellant an email discussing the Appellant and describing the Appellant’s interactions as a “saga”. The Appellant immediately responded taking issue with the email. The Appellant, the Alleged Harasser, and their supervisors then met to discuss the Alleged Harasser’s behaviour. The Alleged Harasser’s supervisor noted the behaviour in a performance log. The Appellant subsequently was not the selected candidate for the promotion. The Appellant then filed the Complaint.

The Complaint alleged that the email describing the Appellant’s interactions as a “saga” amounted to harassment. The Complaint also explained that, in subsequent dealings, the Alleged Harasser had been dishonest with the intended recipient of the email and that it was originally intended for a coworker in her unit. The Appellant felt that the Alleged Harasser’s opinion affected her opportunity for promotion.

Prior to rendering a Decision, the Respondent received a written response to the Complaint from the Alleged Harasser. The Respondent also sought input from the Alleged Harasser’s supervisor regarding the recipient of the email as well as from the National Promotions Unit regarding the impartiality of the promotion process.

The Respondent rendered a Decision finding that the Complaint was not established. In his view, given the isolated nature of the email, there was no need to mandate an investigation nor did its content demean the Appellant.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision.

During the Appeal, the Appellant submitted a number of documents, which explained the involvement of the Alleged Harasser in the promotion process as well as a document explaining the information gathered prior to the Decision. The ERC found that these documents should be included as fresh evidence in the Appeal.

The ERC found that the Decision was both procedurally unfair and clearly unreasonable. More specifically, the ERC found that the principles of fairness had not been adhered to as the Appellant was not provided an opportunity to explain fully the substance of her Complaint and to respond to the information gathered by the Respondent prior to the rendering of the Decision.

The ERC also found that the decision not to mandate an investigation was clearly unreasonable. It was determined that the conduct of the Alleged Harasser and the content of the correspondence, did not clarify the scope of the Alleged Harasser’s actions or whether they impacted the Appellant’s career aspirations. This information was necessary to resolve the substance of the Appellant’s complaint.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allows the appeal and remit the matter to a new decision-maker so that he or she can mandate an investigation and re-determine the Complaint in line with the principles of procedural fairness.

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

The Appellant appeals the Respondent’s decision finding that the allegation of harassment, made by the Appellant against the Alleged Harasser, was not established. The Appellant accused the Alleged Harasser of gossiping about her via email, after the latter inadvertently sent the email to the former. The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser. She claimed that the email, referring to a “saga” of poor behaviour by the Appellant, demonstrated that the Alleged Harasser was actively harming her reputation and potentially harming her promotional opportunities within her division. The Respondent in this matter concluded that an investigation into the circumstances was not necessary, that the behaviour did not amount to harassment and that the matter was appropriately dealt with by the Alleged Harasser’s manager. The Respondent issued a Record of Decision where he determined that harassment was not established.

The Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal, claiming that the decision was reached in a manner that contravened the principles of procedural fairness and is clearly unreasonable. She argued that an investigation into her allegation was necessary because the context of the email implied there was more to it and that there had been more conversations between the Alleged Harasser and the intended recipient. The Appellant also provided new evidence to support her appeal, as she had never been afforded an opportunity to submit this evidence previously.

The appeal was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC). In a report containing Findings and Recommendations, the ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed on the grounds that the decision was reached in a manner that was not procedurally fair, since the Respondent did not provide the Appellant the opportunity to submit evidence, received submissions made by the Alleged Harasser and other parties, and did not provide the Appellant an opportunity to reply to those submissions. Furthermore, the ERC found that the decision was also clearly unreasonable because the Respondent lacked evidence or a rational basis for his conclusions and was incorrect to suggest an
investigation was unnecessary in the circumstances. The ERC recommended an investigation be mandated and that the matter be remitted to a new decision maker for a new consideration.

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 allowed the appeal. The Adjudicator mandated an investigation and remitted the matter to a new decision maker.