NC-160 - Harassment

The Appellant cancelled a patrol, which resulted in a purportedly tense meeting with two supervisors, one of whom is the Alleged Harasser. The Appellant alleges that the meeting triggered a number of other incidents involving, or with a link to the Alleged Harasser, which the Appellant submitted established harassment. The Appellant lodged a harassment complaint (Complaint) relating to the alleged incidents.

The Respondent found that the Complaint did not meet the definition of harassment, and that an investigation was unnecessary. The Respondent found that there was a workplace conflict between the Appellant and the Alleged Harasser. The Respondent underscored that a manager can exercise their authorities and responsibilities without being found to have engaged in harassment, so long as the manager does so legitimately, properly and respectfully.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision. He submitted that the Respondent’s Decision was procedurally unfair and clearly unreasonable. The Appellant believed that an investigation should have occurred, and witnesses should have been interviewed. The Appellant asserted that there was not enough information in his initial Complaint for the Respondent to find that harassment did not occur. 

The ERC found that the appeal should be allowed because the Decision was procedurally unfair and clearly unreasonable.

The ERC found that the failure to provide the Appellant with an opportunity to supplement his Complaint resulted in a breach of procedural fairness, since he was not able to fully explain the details of his Complaint.

The ERC further found that the failure to mandate an investigation resulted in a breach of procedural fairness, and led to a clearly unreasonable Decision. The Appellant was again deprived of the opportunity to fully present his version of events, and the Decision was clearly unreasonable because there was insufficient information available for the Respondent to grapple with, which led to findings that lacked rational and tenable lines of analysis.

The ERC made additional remarks about two errors of law which are relevant to the ERC’s recommendation: the misapplication of the reasonable person test, and the failure to consider the incidents in question as a series or pattern.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed, and the matter be remitted to a new decision-maker with the following directions for rendering a new decision:

    - Supplemental information be obtained from the Appellant;

    - An investigation be mandated into the Appellant’s harassment allegation;

    - The decision-maker consider all of the incidents in question as a series or pattern; and

    - The decision-maker properly apply the reasonable person test.