Grievance Case Summary - G-506

The Grievor applied for a position which represented a potential promotion for him. The Alleged Harasser was involved in the selection process. The Grievor felt that the Alleged Harasser took steps to prevent him from getting the job. He filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser. He accused him of committing abuses of authority during the selection process. No investigation was initiated into the harassment complaint, and no further action was taken.

The Grievor grieved the decision not to investigate his complaint. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on its merits. He concluded that the Grievor did not submit "sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case of harassment". He explained that the Grievor failed to file copies of his harassment complaint, as well as a key report. He also reasoned that there was nothing in the record which showed how the Alleged Harasser may have committed an abuse of authority.

At the outset, the ERC clarified the scope of the matter before it. It observed that the case was about how the Force handled the Grievor's harassment complaint. This meant that arguments about the selection process itself fell outside the ambit of the grievance.

The ERC found that the record it was given was incomplete, contrary to subsection 33(3) of the RCMP Act. lt also noted that essential, clearly available documents were missing at Level I. As a result, the Level I Adjudicator could not make informed decisions on three substantial points. These involved the Respondent's identity, the nature of the impugned decision, and timeliness. The ERC found that policy direction was unclear about who was responsible for providing the missing material at Level I in this case. Applicable jurisprudence indicated that before a Level I Adjudicator in this type of situation makes a decision, he or she should request, with notice to the parties, that missing, but essential and clearly available documents be placed on the record.

The ERC highlighted some important principles to be mindful of when considering a grievance involving a decision not to investigate a harassment complaint. Specifically, the discretion to decide not to investigate a harassment complaint should be exercised very carefully, and only in the most exceptional of cases. Moreover, the scope of such a review cannot be limited to merely reading the material filed by the complainant, except in rare cases where it is simply inconceivable that a full investigation would lead to conclusion that harassment had occurred.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance by quashing the Level I decision. It also recommended that he refer the grievance back to the Level I Adjudicator, for a reconsideration and redetermination, once the record is made complete. It further recommended that he order a review of relevant Force policy for the purpose of clarifying who has the responsibility to ensure that a Level I Adjudicator receives a complete record.

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

In a decision dated February 1, 2013, Commissioner Robert W. Paulson agreed with the ERC's findings and recommendations.