NC-096 – Harassment

The Appellant presented a harassment complaint (Complaint) against his supervisor (Alleged Harasser). He accused the Alleged Harasser of ignoring or taking too long to answer his requests. He also accused the Alleged Harasser of communicating with him in a belittling way, including once in front of Corporal (Cpl.) X. In his reply, the Alleged Harasser explained why he had done certain things, and attributed some of his actions to staffing and budget issues.

The Respondent ordered an investigation. Investigators interviewed both parties and a witness. They then drafted a detailed report that outlined the statements they had obtained, and several other pieces of evidence. After reviewing the report and the evidence, the Respondent found that allegations did not individually constitute harassment. Taking into consideration the totality of her findings, she concluded that the Complaint was not established (Decision).

The Appellant appealed the Decision. He believed that it was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and was clearly unreasonable. He took four positions. Namely, the Respondent: had a reasonable apprehension of bias; omitted to consider the allegations as a whole; omitted to pursue and address two specific issues; and omitted to have the investigators interview Cpl. X.

The ERC was not persuaded by the Appellant’s positions.

An alleged breach of procedural fairness must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The Appellant learned the Respondent would be the decision-maker months before the Decision was made. Yet he did not object to her appointment, or ask to have any possible unfairness resolved. Assuming he learned about a possible reasonable apprehension of bias only after the Decision was made, he did not provide any evidence of an impropriety to support his position.

Moreover, the Decision was not clearly unreasonable. First, the Respondent both recognized and applied the principle that allegations of harassment must be considered as a whole. She found that the allegations did not collectively reveal harassment. Rather, they collectively revealed a mutual communication breakdown, different workstyles, and a shared lack of professionalism and respect. Second, the investigators did examine, and the Respondent did address, one of the two issues the Appellant claimed was ignored. Although the investigators did not pursue and address the other issue, that issue principally involved the actions of someone other than the Alleged Harasser. Third, it was unnecessary for the investigators to interview Cpl. X, since Cpl. X would not have offered obviously crucial evidence. The Appellant and Alleged Harasser already provided clear and corresponding accounts of the incident that Cpl. X witnessed. Ultimately, the evidence the Respondent received and relied on was capable of supporting her findings.

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

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

The Appellant challenged the Respondent’s finding that his harassment complaint was not established.

According to the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser ignored, declined, or took too long to answer his requests for a RCMP travel card, kit and clothing, and overtime claim. The Appellant also contended that the Alleged Harasser set him up for failure by giving him a short turnaround time to prepare a statistical report for a meeting, and spoke to him in a belittling manner.

The Respondent ordered an investigation and issued a Record of Decision after considering the Final Investigation Report and the evidence presented to her. In the Respondent’s view, the incidents forming the Appellant’s allegation against the Alleged Harasser did not constitute harassment, either individually or in their totality.

The Appellant files a Statement of Appeal, claiming that the decision contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness and was clearly unreasonable. He argued a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Respondent who had failed to consider the incidents in their totality, overlooked certain issues, and failed to have the harassment investigators interview Corporal X.

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 denied. The ERC found that the Appellant had not demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, and was satisfied that the Respondent considered the incidents in their totality; and did not overlook any issues. The ERC also determined that interviewing Corporal X would not have offered any crucial evidence.

Having examined the facts of the matter, the applicable statutory provisions, and the relevant jurisprudence, the Adjudicator agreed with the ERC recommendation and dismissed the appeal.