# 2009-001 Harassment, Administrative Action, Apologies, Confusion Created by Giving Priority to Harassment Complaints Over...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2009–12–31

The grievor submitted a grievance against a recorded warning (RW) issued to her nine months previously. In her grievance, the grievor also lodged a harassment complaint, which she requested to be treated separately.

The IA determined that the RW was valid and legitimate. As for the harassment complaint, the IA declared himself satisfied with the results of the investigation and concluded that the evidence did not support the grievor's allegations of harassment.

The grievor then asked that her file be referred to the final authority, and asked for official acknowledgement that the file had not been handled in accordance with administrative standards. She also requested that the RW be withdrawn from her personnel file, that the supervisor and the unit apologize, and that the unofficial file on her be destroyed.

The Board concluded that the grievance concerned the issuing of the RW and the process surrounding it, while the harassment complaint, based on the reading of the six allegations it contained, concerned statements or actions of the supervisor in connection with the administrative action. Consequently, the harassment complaint and the contesting of the administrative action ought to have been treated separately. However, the griever did not contest the findings of the harassment investigation report or the decision of the AI. The Board therefore concluded that the harassment complaint was not the subject of the grievance submitted to the Board and considered this part of the case closed.

With regard to the grievance, which had been submitted outside of the time limit established in the regulations, and given the confusion generated by the treating of the harassment complaint and the grievance as one and the fact that the CF took more than three years to complete its handling of the grievance, the Board was of the opinion that the time period involved could reasonably create a legitimate expectation on the part of the grievor that her file would be examined. The Board found that the decision of the DGCFGA to consider the grievance was reasonable.

The Board determined that the e mail sent by the supervisor to the grievor concerning her deficiencies did constitute a preliminary warning prior to the RW. Moreover, the grievor admitted having been verbally warned about her deficiencies in the past by another supervisor. Nevertheless, the grievor was not offered the tools and assistance needed to correct her deficiencies. Because this essential condition was not met, the Board concluded that the RW was premature and unjustified, and recommended that the CDS order its cancellation and destruction.

Finally, with respect to the grievor's other requests, the Board found that obliging someone to apologize would conflict with their freedom of expression and refused to grant this request. As for the unofficial file, the grievor had no confirmation that such a file existed, despite having applied to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and consequently the Board found that it could not find on the subject.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2010–04–23

The CDS is partially in agreement with the Board's conclusions and its recommendations concerning the grievance. Given the circumstances of this case, the CDS agreed to consider the grievance submitted outside of the prescribed time limit in the interests of justice. The CDS did not agree with the Board's recommendation to provide the grievor with the help needed to improve her performance with regard to meeting deadlines. He upheld the Board's recommendation to withdraw the RW from the grievor's file, but rather than ordering the RW destroyed, he asked that it be handled in accordance with the Library and Archives of Canada Act.