NC-169 - Harassment

The Appellant lodged a harassment complaint (Complaint) against his field coach (Alleged Harasser). He accused him of failing to use supervision documents appropriately, of forcing him to conduct illegal and unsafe driving practices, of falsely accusing him of lying, and of creating a hostile and intimidating work climate. The Appellant also maintained that the Alleged Harasser failed to consider his need for accommodation.

The Respondent dismissed the Complaint finding that the Alleged Harasser was acting within the scope of his duties. The Appellant appealed the Decision arguing that it had been reached in a procedurally unfair manner because the Respondent demonstrated bias by comparing a statement the Appellant made in the Complaint with one that he made in a separate process and by making unwarranted and baseless assumptions that the Appellant has filed harassment complaints against everyone involved in his supervision. The Appellant also argued that the Respondent erred in law by misapplying the definition of harassment. Finally, the Appellant challenged the Decision on the basis that it was clearly unreasonable because the Respondent made factual errors in his analysis on the merits of the allegations, failed to sufficiently explain the Decision and did not consider the Appellant’s need for accommodation.

The ERC found that there was no evidence of a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Respondent and therefore, that the Appellant’s procedural rights were not breached. The ERC also found that the Respondent did not err in law and that the Decision is not clearly unreasonable. More specifically, the ERC determined that the Respondent relied on the entirety of the evidence before him when he assessed the merits of the alleged behaviours. It was also determined that the Respondent grappled with the controversial statements provided by the parties, engaged in a coherent and rational analysis of the evidence and explained how the facts before him led him to conclude that the alleged behaviours did not meet the definition of harassment.

Finally, the ERC found that, besides the general comment that the Respondent failed to consider his need for accommodation, the Appellant had not provided further submissions on this issue. 

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.