NC-270 - Harassment

The Appellant was harassed at his workplace and the RCMP transferred him to a different work location “Z”. At “Z”, the Appellant was allegedly harassed by his supervisor. The RCMP temporarily transferred the Appellant to a third work location “B” where he reported to a new supervisor. He worked well at this work location with his new supervisor, but his previous supervisor allegedly continued to harass him while he was there. The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against his previous supervisor regarding her alleged actions towards him while he was at “Z” and “B”.

Then, the RCMP required the Appellant to return to his former work location, “Z” where his previous supervisor still worked. The Appellant returned to “Z” but indicated that he did not agree with the decision to send him back there. During his return to “Z”, the Appellant alleged that his former supervisor breached certain “no contact” measures that had been imposed because of the Appellant’s harassment complaint against her. The Appellant also alleged that he experienced two intimidating incidents in the detachment parking lot that involved his previous supervisor’s husband.

As a result of workplace stressors, the Appellant took a significant amount of sick leave. The Health Services Officer (HSO) assigned the Appellant an O6 permanent medical profile. The HSO believed the Appellant had reached the point of maximum medical improvement and was not fit for any duties in the RCMP.

Discharge proceedings were initiated and a Notice of Intent to Discharge (NOI) was issued. The Appellant provided a response to the NOI in which he argued that the RCMP had failed to provide him with a safe workplace. The Appellant felt that he should not be discharged because he was able to return to work, as long as he was in a safe and harassment-free workplace. He provided medical documentation in support of his argument. The Appellant also argued that the RCMP did not accommodate him to the point of undue hardship. 

The Respondent issued a Decision ordering the Appellant’s discharge, on the basis of having a disability, as defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.H-6. The Respondent found that the RCMP took the appropriate steps to provide a safe workplace in which the Appellant could have returned to work. The Respondent also found that the RCMP had accommodated the Appellant when he was moved to “Z”, to separate him from the member who harassed him at his first workplace. The Respondent noted that the test of undue hardship was met because, despite the RCMP’s accommodation efforts, the Appellant was not fit for any duties within the RCMP as a regular member for the foreseeable future. The Respondent concluded that the Appellant was not suitable for continued employment in the RCMP due to having a disability for which an accommodation could not be afforded short of undue hardship. 

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision.

The ERC found that the Respondent made a clearly unreasonable Decision because his reasons were insufficient. His reasons did not respond to the Appellant’s concerns about his former supervisor’s alleged behaviour towards him and the RCMP’s failure to meaningfully address her alleged behaviour. In addition, the Respondent did not grapple with the Appellant’s medical evidence supporting his contention that he could return to work as an RCMP member, in a safe and harassment-free environment. Finally, the Respondent’s reasons explaining that the Appellant was accommodated to the point of undue hardship were inadequate. His reliance on a five-and-a-half-year period of partial absence by the Appellant did not fully reflect the context in which those absences took place, and he did not explain why a transfer to any work location other than “Z” would have amounted to an undue hardship for the RCMP.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed and that the Appellant be reinstated and remunerated with full pay and allowances retroactive to the date of his discharge.