Grievance Case Summary - G-552-553-554

A Complainant alleged that the Grievor harassed her. Shortly thereafter, three superior officers met to address the complaint. The Grievor was later informed that, at the meeting, one of the officers decided to reassign the Complainant, and the other officers supported that decision. The Grievor believed that the decision removed some of his duties and redirected them to the Complainant. The harassment complaint against the Grievor was eventually dismissed. The Grievor submitted harassment complaints against all three superior officers. He contended that they prematurely decided in favour of the Complainant, and that such a decision amounted to an abuse of authority and a breach of policy. The Respondent, a Human Resources Officer (HRO), screened out each complaint. He reasoned that the officers had simply participated in a managerial decision-making exercise, and that none acted with malice or an improper motive.

The Grievor filed three grievances in which he challenged the fairness and thoroughness of the screening processes. The Respondent defended his decisions. He added that the officers had acted with his support. The Grievor countered that this created a perception of bias. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievances. He held that the Grievor did not prove that the Respondent had erred or mishandled the complaints. Moreover, he rejected the Grievor's perception of bias argument, finding that it was made too late. The Grievor disputed the decision. He also urged that the Adjudicator's objectivity may have been clouded from dealing with all three grievances.

The ERC found that the Level I Adjudicator's objectivity could not be questioned on the sole basis that he had decided multiple similar grievances. Legislation and policy permitted adjudicators to do this. Second, it found that the Grievor had presented a perception of bias argument at his earliest possible opportunity. The Level I Adjudicator therefore erred by refusing to consider it.

The ERC turned to the merits. It found that the Respondent lacked the authority to make a final decision to screen out the Grievor's complaints, noting that Force policy directed the Responsible Officer to make the final screening decision. The ERC also found that the Respondent was in a conflict of interest position throughout the screening process, and that this created an appearance of bias. It reasoned that he could not be a witness and a decision-maker in the same process. Lastly, the ERC found that the Respondent disregarded two procedural requirements at the screening stage. First, he did not seek clarification from the Grievor, and collect more information, before screening out the complaints. Second, he failed to assume that the Grievor's allegations could be true. This led him to bypass the screening function, and assess the merits of the complaints.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the three grievances, and that he apologize to the Grievor for the Force's failure to properly deal with his harassment complaints.

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

The Commissioner allowed the grievance, as recommended by the ERC. The Commissioner concluded that the Force failed to properly deal with the Grievor's harassment complaint and issued an apology to the Grievor in that regard.