NC-217 – Harassment

The Appellant lodged a harassment complaint (Complaint) against his watch commander (Alleged Harasser) accusing him of sending a briefing note to Occupational Health Services (OHS) as a punitive measure after he questioned the Alleged Harasser’s handling of the sanitary measures implemented at the detachment in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Appellant maintained that the Alleged Harasser was perhaps trying to get him to a level of not being operational or have him medically discharged. The Appellant stated that the Alleged Harasser’s actions damaged his credibility and made him feel humiliated, degraded, defeated, targeted, uncomfortable and anxious.

The Respondent dismissed the Complaint, finding that the Alleged Harasser’s actions did not amount to harassment (Decision). Rather, he found that the latter was fulfilling his managerial duty when he sent the briefing note because it is management’s responsibility to question OHS when a member’s wellness is concerned. The Appellant appealed the Decision indicating that it was clearly unreasonable on the basis that the Respondent failed to mandate an investigation and to consider the central arguments he had brought forth in the Complaint.

The ERC found that the Respondent’s decision not to mandate an investigation was warranted in the circumstances. However, the ERC determined that the Respondent failed to address the Appellant’s central arguments in his assessment of the merits of the Complaint and to provide sufficient reasons to explain why he reached the conclusion that he did with respect to Alleged Behaviour 2. As a result of these errors, the ERC concluded that the Decision is clearly unreasonable.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed, and that the matter be remitted to a new decision maker.