Grievance Case Summary - G-482

The Grievor filed an harassment complaint alleging that a number of actions by certain members of management over a two-year period constituted harassment. The alleged actions included improper performance reports, punitive transfers, unnecessary fitness for duty assessments, unwarranted off-duty sick time, and retaliatory discipline proceedings.

Persons who reviewed the complaint advised the then-Assistant Commissioner (A/Commr.) to request further particulars in order to make a determination. However, the A/Commr. did not follow this advice. Instead, the A/Commr. determined that the conduct complained of did not meet any of the "quite specific" definitions of harassment contained in the RCMP's Policy on Internal Conflict and Harassment in the Workplace, chapter XII.1 of the RCMP Administrative Manual (AM.XII.1), and decided that he would not investigate the complaint. The Grievor grieved the A/Commr.'s determination and decision.

Procedural errors occurred in the Level I proceedings, including:

• when the Grievor requested a ruling on a preliminary issue, the Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG) wrongly identified the issue, and instead asked the Level I Adjudicator to rule on another issue, which he did;
• when the Grievor made a reasonable and timely request for a brief extension of time to file his submissions on the merits, the OCG denied his request by stating, erroneously, that it did not have authority to grant extensions;
• although the Grievor filed his submissions shortly thereafter, the OCG advised the Respondent that he need not review them, and wrongly advised the Level I Adjudicator that the Grievor's submissions did not address the merits; and
• despite the OCG's rationale for denying the Grievor's request for extension, it subsequently granted the Respondent's late and/or unjustified requests for extensions.

Procedural Fairness: In managing the grievance process, the OCG committed procedural errors which created unfairness for the Grievor and seriously restricted the Grievor's right to be heard.

The Merits of the Grievance: The ERC reviewed the steps to be followed upon receiving an harassment complaint, as set out in the Treasury Board's Policy on Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace, and the RCMP's policy, AM.XII.1. The ERC found that the A/Commr. failed to treat the complaint in accordance with the policies. First, the A/Commr. should not have reached a decision without first meeting with the Grievor and seeking additional information. Second, if found to be true, the allegations could possibly fall within the broad definition of harassment, and in particular, within the definition of abuse of authority. Therefore, this was not one of the rare cases in which it was justified to refuse to initiate an investigation.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance both on the basis of procedural fairness and on the merits. The ERC further recommended that the Commissioner order that a different Delegated Manager/Commander/Supervisor be named to be responsible for processing this harassment complaint, and that the complaint be dealt with according to the Treasury Board's Policy and the RCMP's policy AM.XII.1.

The Commissioner has rendered a decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC and allowed the grievance both on the basis of procedural fairness and on the merits. The Commissioner found that in managing this grievance, procedural errors were committed and agreed with the ERC that the procedural errors created unfairness for the Grievor and seriously restricted his right to be heard. Although the Commissioner allowed the grievance, he did not make any finding as to whether or not the conduct constituted harassment. Rather, he concluded that the Respondent's decision was defective because he did not seek additional information, namely a more specific complaint, from the Grievor to clarify certain issues in order to determine if the allegations were related to harassment.

Due to the passage of time, the Commissioner found that it would not be appropriate to order an investigation. However, he apologized to the Grievor for the fact that his harassment complaint was not dealt with in the manner required by the applicable policies.