Grievance Case Summary - G-657

The Grievor was accused of harassment by one of his subordinates. The harassment complaint included two allegations which are relevant to this grievance. In the second allegation, the complainant alleged that the Grievor exceptionally demanded that he surrender his unit cell phone.

Following a harassment investigation, the Responsible Officer concluded that both allegations were founded. The Grievor grieved this decision, initially by sending a letter to his supervisor. He explained that he was busy attending numerous meetings during the period specified in the first allegation, and therefore could not have harassed the complainant. Regarding the second allegation, the Grievor submitted that he had acted reasonably within his managerial responsibilities. The Grievor also argued that the harassment investigator had a conflict of interest, because she had previously served as the complainant's supervisor.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. Her decision focused on whether the harassment investigator had a conflict of interest. The Adjudicator considered sections in Part XII.17 of the Administration Manual (AM XII.17) applicable to harassment investigations. She concluded that such a past supervisory relationship did not create a conflict of interest, partly because she observed that the supervisory relationship in question had occurred seven years prior to the investigation. The Grievor accepted the Level I Adjudicator's decision on the issue of conflict of interest. However, he asserted that his submissions on the two specific allegations had been ignored at Level I.

The ERC found that the letter the Grievor had sent to his supervisor amounted to a grievance presentation at Level I, because it contained all of the information required for a valid grievance under the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Grievances).

The ERC observed that, pursuant to AM XII.17, a harassment complaint must be presented in writing and must provide the date and description of the incident in question. The ERC concluded that, since the dates associated with the first allegation were adjusted without notifying the Grievor, the resulting decision on the first allegation was inconsistent with the applicable law and policies.

The ERC found no contravention of applicable harassment authorities in the Responsible Officer's decision on the second allegation and that the record supported the Responsible Officer's conclusion that the Grievor's demand for the complainant's cell phone did not reflect a normal managerial practice at the time.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance as it pertained to the second allegation. The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the grievance as it pertained to the first allegation. Since it would be impractical to reconsider the first allegation due to the lengthy passage of time, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner apologize to the Grievor for this error in the harassment investigation and decision-making process.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Grievor challenged a decision by the Respondent concerning a harassment complaint against the Grievor. The Commissioner accepts the ERC's findings that the Respondent's decision with respect to Allegation 2 was inconsistent with harassment authorities. The Commissioner further agrees with the ERC's finding that the Respondent's decision pertaining to Allegation 8 was consistent with applicable law and policies. The grievance is allowed in part.