NC-154 - Harassment

The Appellant and the Alleged Harasser worked together in the same office during a high stress period caused by a staffing shortage. Due to the shortage, both the Appellant and the Alleged Harasser had a large workload, and both took on tasks beyond their respective roles. The Appellant felt that the Alleged Harasser was undermining his managerial role, interfering in his work responsibilities, and making frivolous complaints about his behaviour. The Appellant and the Alleged Harasser engaged in a number of meetings in an attempt to resolve their conflict. The Appellant eventually transferred to another location and submitted a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser. The Respondent did not find the harassment allegation established.

The Appellant appealed this Decision on the basis that the investigators did not complete a thorough investigation because they omitted to interview two witnesses. The Appellant also believed that the Decision was clearly unreasonable due to a number of omissions in the Decision. During the course of the appeal, the Appellant objected to the Respondent naming a harassment advisor as a representative.

Objection to Respondent’s Representative

The ERC found that the RCMP Act allowed for representatives to be named for proceedings before the ERC. As a result, there also exists limitations to who may be a representative. One of these limitations is that the representative not be in a conflict of interest. The ERC reviewed the role of a harassment advisor and found that there was no conflict of interest between being in that role and subsequently acting as a representative on appeal. The role requires working under the direction of the Respondent prior to the decision and does not provide the advisor any information or objective which conflicts with the ability to be a representative.  

Procedural Fairness – Incomplete Investigation

The ERC found that the two witnesses, identified by the Appellant, could not provide crucial enough evidence to amount to a breach of procedural fairness. One witness was only brought forward at the appeal stage and otherwise, was not identified to investigators. As well, the witness was only identified as being a witness to a single statement made by the Alleged Harasser. The second witness was described as having knowledge of the Alleged Harasser’s hiring and her circumstances at her previous employment. The ERC found that neither of these witness could provide sufficient information to amount to the investigators missing obviously crucial evidence.

Clearly Unreasonable Decision

The ERC found that none of the alleged deficiencies in the Decision led to it being clearly unreasonable. The Respondent, in the Decision, did not mention every piece of evidence nor did he review every sentence made by the parties in their statements. However, the Respondent did make findings regarding the alleged incidents identified by the Appellant. The ERC found that any omissions identified by the Appellant were too tangential to the alleged incidents of harassment to amount to a clearly unreasonable decision. 

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed. 

The Adjudicator agreed with the ERC Findings and Recommendations and as such, adopted the ERC Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as their reasons for concluding for that this appeal be dismissed.