NC-130 - Harassment

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision who found that the five allegations of harassment made against an Alleged Harasser did not meet the definition of harassment. Further, the Respondent conducted a limited investigation by obtaining the Alleged Harasser’s statement and the Appellant’s rebuttal to this statement. These allegations arose while the Appellant was Off Duty Sick (ODS) and the Appellant’s perception of how he was treated during this period by the Alleged Harasser, who was the Detachment Commander. 

The Appellant appealed claiming that the process was procedurally unfair because a statement the Appellant attached to the Harassment Complaint Form did not make its way to the Respondent prior to him making his Decision. Further, the Appellant submitted that the Decision was clearly unreasonable because none of his listed witnesses were interviewed and the Respondent accepted the Alleged Harasser’s version of events over his own.

Investigations into harassment complaints as a general rule must be completed. In this particular case, a limited investigation was done which is sufficient if it tells the “full story.” While the Appellant took issue with the Respondent accepting the Alleged Harasser’s version of events over his own, this is acceptable provided that the basis for so accepting this was not clearly unreasonable. The ERC agreed with the Respondent for the most part in respect to his interpretation of the events. However, with respect to the return of the work cell phone, the ERC determined that the Alleged Harasser mismanaged his communications with the Appellant. However, this was not harassment.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the appeal.

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

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

According to the Appellant, while he was off duty for an extended period of time, the Alleged Harasser referred to him as an outside party, failed to include him in holiday festivities, cleared his desk, and requested his exhibit room key and work cellphone. These actions left the Appellant feeling offended, belittled, demeaned, humiliated, and intimidated.

The Respondent considered the allegations put forward by the Appellant and issued a Record of Decision after assessing the evidence presented to him. In the Respondent’s view, the incidents forming the Appellant’s allegations against the Alleged Harasser did not constitute harassment, either individually or in their totality.

The Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal, claiming that the decision contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness and was clearly unreasonable. He argued that the Respondent was not presented all of the material that he provided in support of his harassment complaint and that the Respondent failed to investigate the allegations.

The appeal was referred to the ERC and in a Report containing Findings and Recommendations, the ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

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.