# 2021-165 Harassment, Harassment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-11-16

The grievor argued that the decision to close his 2nd harassment complaint (HC) was unjustified and, as redress, sought its re-opening.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied redress, explaining that the 2nd HC contained the exact same allegations made by the grievor in his 1st HC, which had previously been determined to not meet the definition of harassment. Since a decision had already been made on the 1st HC, the IA found that the grievor could not re-submit the same allegations in the 2nd HC. The IA concluded that the proper course of action was to file a grievance in accordance with A-PM-007-000-Harassment Prevention and Resolution Instructions if the grievor was unsatisfied with the result of the 1st HC.

The Committee first found that the allegations forming the 1st HC were considered under the 1st HC process and that the 1st HC was properly closed.

The Committee then reviewed the only new allegation in the 2nd HC and found that it did not meet the definition of harassment. Given that the remaining allegations on the 2nd HC had already been properly considered under the 1st HC process, the Committee found that the decision to close the 2nd HC was justified.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford redress.