NC-127 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a number of complaints relating to alleged harassment that both she and her husband, also an RCMP member, were subjected to. Essentially, the Appellant complained that two supervisors were discussing her and her husband’s respective medical and employment histories. The Appellant complained to the Alleged Harasser, her Line Officer. The Appellant claimed that the Alleged Harasser failed to address the matter with the two supervisors. She filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser for minimizing the supervisors’ conduct and failing to take action to resolve her concerns.

The Respondent ordered a limited investigation, i.e., the Appellant was the only one interviewed and found that while there may have been issues, they were performance matters and did not meet the definition of harassment.

The Appellant appealed, claiming that the Respondent’s Decision was clearly unreasonable and that the process was procedurally unfair, as the Respondent was biased and among other things, was not provided with a copy of her statement, or the Preliminary Investigation Report. 

The ERC found that the Decision was not clearly unreasonable. The ERC agreed that the allegations against the Alleged Harasser did not meet the definition of harassment. To meet the definition, the actions must be improper and offensive. Allegedly failing to deal with the Appellant’s concerns or inappropriately doing so lacked the offensive component of harassment. As managers are responsible for taking action to stop harassment, the Appellant should have escalated her request to the Alleged Harasser’s Line Officer. 

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.    

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

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser, who is her Line Officer, for failing to properly address her other harassment complaints. The Respondent ordered an investigation into the complaint and found that the behaviour of the Alleged Harasser did not amount to harassment.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision, claiming that the decision is clearly unreasonable and was reached in a manner that contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness.

The appeal was referred to the ERC and, in a Report containing Findings and Recommendations, the ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed. The adjudicator agreed with the finding of the ERC. The adjudicator found that the Appellant’s procedural rights were not breached and that the decision is not clearly unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed.