NC-109 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint (Complaint). He asserted that the Alleged Harasser improperly oversaw some of his overtime opportunities, scheduling, and leave. The last alleged incident of harassment predated the Complaint by almost two years. The Appellant explained that there were extenuating circumstances that justified his late presentation of the Complaint. Namely, he said he raised concerns with superiors and others, but nobody helped him.

The Respondent decided to dismiss the Complaint (Decision). He reasoned that the Appellant lodged the Complaint beyond the time limit specified in the RCMP Harassment Policy (Policy), which was within one year of the last alleged incident of harassment. He also reasoned that the Appellant’s choice to raise concerns with superiors outside the harassment complaint process was not an extenuating circumstance that prevented a timely submission of the Complaint. The Respondent noted that an “extenuating circumstance” was one over which someone had little or no control. In his view, the Appellant had ample time and opportunity to bring a timely complaint. The Respondent added that, although the Appellant went off duty sick (ODS) at one point, he could have accessed resources on how to present a harassment complaint while he was ODS.

The Appellant appealed the Decision. He felt it was reached in a procedurally unfair manner. He also thought it was clearly unreasonable, for four reasons. First, the Respondent dismissed the Complaint on a technicality. Second, the Respondent rejected his reason for filing the Complaint late. Third, the Respondent wrongly believed the Appellant had access to resources that could have helped him submit a harassment complaint while he was ODS. Fourth, the Respondent failed to realize that the Alleged Harasser’s behaviours were harassing.

The ERC found that the Appellant did not explain, and that it was otherwise unclear how the Decision was reached in a procedurally unfair manner. The Appellant was invited to, and did, set out in writing the extenuating circumstances that he believed prevented him from filing the Complaint on time. The Respondent considered the Appellant’s explanation, disagreed with it, and issued a Decision containing reasons in support of his conclusion. There is no evidence that the Respondent lacked objectivity or independence in so doing.

The ERC also found that the Decision was not clearly unreasonable. The Respondent provided rational lines of analysis in support of his conclusions that the Complaint was untimely, and that there was no reasonable justification for its late submission. He did this by applying the RCMP Policy to the facts before him, and by making findings that were consistent with the Policy, the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Investigation and Resolution of Harassment Complaints) (CSO (Harassment)), and an applicable RCMP Guidance Document. The Respondent was correct in observing that there were helpful resources the Appellant could have consulted while he was ODS. One resource was the CSO (Harassment), which was publicly available. Another was the Harassment Policy, which was available on the RCMP Infoweb and through the RCMP Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints, a Member Workplace Representative, or even a colleague. Those two authorities made it clear that a harassment complaint had to be presented in accordance with the RCMP harassment complaint and investigation process. They also described how the process worked, and detailed a complainant’s rights and obligations. Having found that the Complaint was untimely, and that there were no extenuating circumstances, the Respondent came to the Decision. It was final. He no longer had authority to decide if the Alleged Harasser’s behaviours were harassing in nature.

The ERC commented on the manner in which the Appellant’s superiors appeared to treat him. It was up to the Appellant to know and assert his rights under RCMP harassment authorities. However, if the superiors with whom he allegedly raised concerns of harassment did not direct him on how to address those concerns, then they disregarded a key obligation under the Policy.

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, a member of ‘’X’’ Division, encountered issues with a constable who had authority to schedule overtime. As a result of these issues, the Appellant claimed that the constable stopped offering him overtime opportunities. The Appellant raised his concerns to his immediate supervisor and two superiors. Over a year later, the Appellant lodged harassment complaints against all four members (Alleged Harassers) alleging that the constable’s actions constituted harassment, and none of his superiors did anything to rectify the situation.

The Respondent issued four decisions concluding the harassment complaint process because the Appellant failed to file his complaints within the one-year time limits prescribed by the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Investigation and Resolution of Harassment Complaints).

The Appellant presented four appeals disputing the Respondent’s decisions on the grounds that they contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness and are clearly unreasonable. The appeals were subsequently referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC). The ERC determined that the Respondent provided a rational line of analysis to support the conclusion that the complaints were files outside the prescription period and that there were no exceptional circumstances that justified the late presentation. The ERC recommended that the appeal be denied.

After examining the facts, applicable policy, statutory provisions, and relevant jurisprudence, the Adjudicator agreed with the ERC recommendation and dismissed the appeals.