G-785 - Harassment

The Grievor was denied specialized training and was removed from unit duties. The Grievor emailed his concerns to the Commanding Officer of “X” Division. At a later date, the Grievor overheard a civilian member discussing his concerns with other RCMP employees at a conference. The Grievor presented a grievance challenging the “unprofessional conduct and behaviour”, which, in his view, amounted to harassment and discrimination against him. As redress, the Grievor requested an investigation under the RCMP Harassment Policy and a Code of Conduct investigation, in addition to a “substantial monetary award” for him and his family. The Respondent raised the issue of standing.

The grievance was delayed between 2011 and 2016 due to the Grievor’s refusal to communicate with the Office for the Coordination of Grievances and due to his off-duty sick status. The record is silent for the period between 2016 and 2020. In January 2021, the Grievor confirmed that he wanted to proceed with his grievance. The file was referred for a collateral decision on standing.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, concluding that the Grievor had no standing. The Adjudicator found that the civilian member’s choice to discuss the Grievor’s concerns with other members did not amount to a decision, act, or omission that had been made in the administration of the Force’s affairs.

The ERC determined that the Grievor met the requirements for standing. First, the ERC found that the Grievor was a member of the RCMP at all relevant times and that he was aggrieved by a decision, act or omission. With respect to another process for redress, the ERC noted that the Grievor was entitled to use the grievance process instead of the harassment process to raise his concerns. Turning to the requirement that the disputed decision, act or omission must have been made in the administration of the Force’s affairs, the ERC found that the RCMP was responsible for the alleged decisions, acts and/or omissions that gave rise to the Grievor’s aggrievement. In this regard, the ERC determined that the subject matter of the grievance related to the Grievor’s allegation that the RCMP harassed and discriminated against him by denying him specialized training, removing him from unit duties and mishandling his personal information. On this basis, the ERC concluded that the alleged actions had been made within the administration of the Force’s affairs. 

The ERC recommends that the Commissioner allow the grievance.