Public Interest Investigation Report into Issues of Workplace Harassment within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Assessment of harassment files

The Commission undertook to examine each file created following the filing of the prescribed RCMP harassment complaint form from February 1, 2005, to November 16, 2011, the date of initiation of its public interest investigation. The RCMP policy for dealing with harassment complaints and incidents of harassment, as will be outlined in detail below, requires first an assessment of whether a particular complaint falls within the policy definition of harassment, followed by a determination of whether and what type of investigation is required. Following a decision that the harassment definition is not met, that the definition is met but allegations are not substantiated, or that the definition is met and the allegations substantiated, the complainant is informed of such decision and of the action that will be taken. In light of those policy requirements and with a view to gathering potentially relevant background information, the Commission created an assessment template. The Commission's assessment attempted to address a number of criteria, including:

• the gender, length of service and employee type of the complainant and respondent;
• the relationship between the complainant and respondent;
• whether or not the parties were open to mediation;
• whether the incident(s) complained of involved a single incident or a pattern of behaviour, and whether the alleged harassment was direct or indirect;
• the screening decision made and the time required;
• whether or not an investigation was completed and the time required;
• the final decision; and
• whether or not investigations were consistent and reasonably thorough.

The Commission was provided with 718 files deemed to be formal harassment complaints by the RCMP falling within the specified date parameters. In each of those files, the required form was filled out. The breakdown of files by RCMP division can be found in Table 1.^{Footnote 1}

Table 1 Harassment complaints by RCMP division

Overall and on average, the total number of complaints formally lodged represented approximately 2.5% of all employees of the RCMP.

Among the files assessed by the Commission, it was noted that in total, 44% of complainants were female, while 49% were male. Seven percent of complainants were of unknown gender based on the file materials available, or multiple complainants/respondents were present. Sixty-one percent of complainants were regular RCMP members, while 39% were either public service employees, civilian members or other employee types. The divisional breakdown of the preceding numbers can be found in Table 2.

Table 2 Complainants by division, gender and employee type

With respect to respondents, in total, 71% were male and 23% female, while the respondent's gender was not identifiable through the file review in 6% of cases. Seventy-three percent of respondents were regular RCMP members, while 27% were either public service employees, civilian members or other employee types. The divisional breakdown of the preceding numbers can be found in Table 3.

Table 3 Respondents by division, gender and employee type

Of the harassment files assessed, 386, or 54% of total files, were determined to relate to repeated incidents of perceived harassment. The vast majority of formal harassment complaints filed in which the alleged harassment could readily be classified (approximately 90%) cited what may be described as varying types of abuse of authority, such as bullying, psychological abuse, and belittling and demeaning behaviour. Files in which discrimination (on the basis of ethnicity, disability, etc.) was cited as the type of harassment suffered amounted to 6% of complaints in which harassment could readily be classified. Approximately 4% of complainants, in files where a specific type of harassment was alleged, reported what may be termed sexual harassment, which includes comments of a sexual nature made to or witnessed by complainants.

Approximately 22% of complainants and 9% of respondents indicated that they would be open to mediation at the time of the complaint's filing; however, only 7% of the formal harassment complaints lodged were determined from the file review to have been resolved through mediation.

The Commission determined through its file review that investigative steps were taken in 33% of cases. The timeline for such investigations varied considerably, from a low of two weeks to a high of almost four years. However, these numbers cannot be cited with accuracy given the inconsistent reporting of initiation and completion dates, the varying points at which investigative steps can be employed throughout the process, the dichotomy between Code of Conduct and harassment investigations, and inconsistent practices between RCMP divisions.

The RCMP determined in 20% of files reviewed that the definition of harassment had been met. The file review conducted revealed that in most cases, the RCMP's harassment policy was adhered to in terms of the appropriate process being applied; however, the manner in which the process could be applied in accordance with policy varied widely. In other words, no matter the process followed, it could be interpreted as complying with policy.

While, as above, there is evidence to suggest that workplace harassment occurs and is reported within the RCMP, the level of such reporting is difficult to ascertain. Another reason for this, as elaborated in a number of interviews, may be the practice of not opening or tracking a harassment complaint that is not made on the prescribed form. It was suggested that in many cases, alternative dispute resolution is encouraged, often on several occasions, in order to forestall the initiation of a formal harassment complaint. While resolution at the earliest possible opportunity is desirable, such resolutions should not be promoted simply to avoid creating a file—in order to obtain a comprehensive picture of harassment complaints, such instances must generate related files and be formally recorded, notwithstanding the absence of a specific form. The magnitude of the issue cannot be accurately defined in the absence of a systematically compiled and nationally comparable system of data collection and reporting.

Comparison with like organizations

It is useful to compare the incidence of workplace harassment within the RCMP, as outlined above, with that reported in other Canadian policing organizations, which may be considered those organizations most hierarchically and operationally similar to the RCMP.

In March 2012, the Commission requested workplace harassment data for calendar year 2010 and/or 2011 from 27 police services across Canada. Of the 27 police agencies contacted, only ten^{Footnote 2} provided either partial or full data.

To facilitate comparison between the RCMP and other Canadian police services, the number of reported harassment cases in 2011 was converted into a rate per 100 police (both sworn and civilian) employees, as shown in Table 4, below.

For a variety of definitional and methodological reasons, direct comparisons across the various police jurisdictions cannot be easily made. Among other factors, there appeared to be a high degree of variability in how workplace harassment was recorded and categorized by the different police agencies.

Table 4 Reported workplace harassment cases in selected Canadian police services, 2011

Public submissions and interviews

As is the case with crime and victimization, one must also consider those cases of workplace harassment that go unreported or unrecorded. While official RCMP harassment statistics, outlined above, do not indicate that there is a problem of epidemic proportions, recent media reports and pending class-action lawsuits suggest that the RCMP may be experiencing a disproportionate amount of workplace harassment issues.

There are a number of reasons why victims of workplace harassment do not report incidents. According to the relevant research literature, the following are the most commonly cited rationales for not reporting.

First, some individuals may be reluctant to define what they are experiencing as harassment due to the perceived stigma attached to such allegations. Some victims of workplace harassment may engage in self-blame whereby they think they are somehow to blame for the abusive behaviour. Some victims may feel that no action would result, that any action pursued would prove futile, or that reporting would provoke a retaliatory response either from the perpetrator, co-workers, or others within the organization.

Partly in order to address potential underreporting of workplace harassment incidents, the Commission issued a call for public submissions in January 2012 in an attempt to elicit feedback from individuals who had not filed formal harassment complaints, and/or who felt they had experiences they wished to share or recommendations for improvements to the manner in which complaints of harassment are addressed by the RCMP. The Commission also conducted interviews with individuals who had self-identified as having information useful to the Commission's investigation, as well as whom the Commission identified on the basis of its review of the public submissions received or following media reports. The Commission also met with other groups and individuals who possessed certain expertise and experience with the RCMP's harassment complaint process. These included RCMP professional standards investigators, managers, Staff Relations Representatives, and public service union representatives.

In total, the Commission conducted 37 interviews and received 63 submissions, including from individuals who had been accused of harassment. In the course of its review, the Commission identified certain consistent themes throughout the submissions and interviews, supported by the file review conducted, which will be outlined throughout this report in greater detail as areas for improvement are identified.

Background

Allegations of harassment within the RCMP workplace are not a new phenomenon. In the early- to mid-1990s, the RCMP's internal Regular Member Survey found that 60% of female RCMP members reported being the victim of sexual harassment in the workplace.^{Footnote 3}

Over a decade ago, Deputy Commissioner G. J. Loeppky, then Chief Human Resources Officer, as the Harassment Prevention Champion, issued a broadcast stating:

"The 1999 Public Service Survey revealed alarming statistics relating to workplace harassment in our organization. The disparity between the number of complaints filed and the number of individuals claiming to be harassed was and remains of great concern and as such, in May 1999, Commissioner Murray committed to give workplace harassment an important priority in our organization .... The cost of harassment goes far beyond the financial costs, such as extended leave, investigations, grievances etc. but more importantly, extends to the emotional cost on its victims. It goes without saying that raising our awareness level of workplace harassment can only lead to more respectful working environments and relationships .... You may rest assured that the Senior Executive Committee of the Force remains committed towards our goal to provide all employees with a harassment-free workplace."

In a background paper prepared for the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP, it was asserted that there exists within the RCMP "... an ethos that permitted the authoritarianism and intimidation by a few to over-ride the principles of the many, and a culture of fear to prevent any effective challenge by subordinates of abusive behavior by superiors [emphasis in original]."^{Footnote 4}

However, it is only in relatively recent times that harassment within the RCMP has attracted widespread public concern. Harassment in the workplace is not unique to the RCMP; it has the potential to affect all public and private sectors and occupational categories, although its effects may be both more prevalent and more visible in some workplace environments than in others. Workplace harassment also affects both women and men, although the level and type of harassment perpetrated against each may be different.

Harassment within the workplace can take many forms, including verbal, physical, psychological and sexual. Harassment can involve an abuse of authority whereby "... managers [and supervisors] intimidate, threaten, exploit, control, humiliate, manipulate, ostracize, ignore, fail to communicate, engage in a pattern of obstructive behavior, [and/]or gossip and spread rumors about their employees...."^{Footnote 5}

Ultimately, workplace harassment threatens fundamental human rights. There are federal and provincial laws that protect Canadian workers from workplace harassment, including the Canadian Human Rights Act, provincial human rights laws, and the Canada Labour Code. Employees may also be subject to internal policies, guidelines, and codes of conduct, as is the case with those employed by the RCMP.

Workplace harassment results in adverse effects on individuals, organizations and society as a whole. There is compelling and mounting evidence which demonstrates that negative workplace behaviours are extremely harmful to both employees and their organizations on many different levels.^{Footnote 6}

"It takes an incredible amount of courage for people to step up with complaints such as these – to have them continually diminished, deflected and dismissed is an outrage. Further, it promotes an environment where people don't speak up..."

At the individual level, short- and longer-term psychological suffering, often exhibited through emotions such as anger, cynicism, depression, fear and humiliation, may be experienced by victims of workplace harassment.^{Footnote 7} These reactions may manifest in a broad range of social and/or psychosomatic conditions, including, but not limited to, "the loss of morale, social isolation and maladjustment, feelings of professional incompetence and powerlessness, psychosomatic illness, extreme and irrational fear of returning to work or performing formerly routine activities, and general job dissatisfaction and reduction in organizational commitment [and engagement]."^{Footnote 8} In extreme cases, the resulting disintegration in a harassment victim's personality may in fact undermine his or her confidence in his or her abilities to such a degree that the individual is reduced to a state of what may be termed involuntary unemployment.^{Footnote 9}

"I felt completely alone and I felt like a failure… I could not believe that my RCMP was capable of treating me in such a callous and disrespectful manner when I had always worked so hard to do my duty and to better the organization."

For some victims of workplace harassment, there is "a progression towards physical after-effects such as stress and stress-related disease and illnesses, including musculoskeletal and mental disorders."^{Footnote 10} In terms of other deleterious health consequences of being a victim of workplace harassment, some traumatized individuals may respond with post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms^{Footnote 11} and/or substance abuse problems. Co-workers and witnesses may also feel at heightened risk due to a workplace harassment incident. The Commission notes that the majority of those interviewed and who made public submissions had been off duty for medical reasons for all or part of the time their harassment complaint was being processed.

"[A]fter more than 20 years of service, I was completely burned out and left on sick leave. My exposure to a poisonous work environment resulted in cumulative and prolonged stress, exacerbated by low supervisor and co-worker support, which directly impacted on my mental and physical health. I was diagnosed with depression and PTSD."

"Being away from ... the RCMP greatly eased my troubles, at least temporarily, but returning ... brought back the anxiety that I had been feeling."

Victims of harassment may also incur "[o]pportunity costs associated with reduced employability or loss of promotional prospects."^{Footnote 12}

"My launching a complaint of harassment against a Commissioned Officer of the RCMP has met with devastating results for me and my career in the RCMP."

The consequential effects of workplace harassment do not end with the immediate victim or complainant. At the organizational level, organizations with abusive and toxic work environments often experience higher health costs and medical expenses, higher rates of sick-related absenteeism, replacement costs (e.g. recruitment, training and professional development) in connection with premature staff turnover and retirement, lower employee morale, and reduced productivity^{Footnote 13} and efficiency. Other costs to the employer may include legal expenses incurred through defending civil liability actions, compensation awards to victims, administrative tribunal and investigative expenses associated with complaints and grievances, and irreparable damage to an organization's reputation^{Footnote 14} and recruitment efforts.

"No one benefits in a [prolonged situation of perceived harassment] ... employee morale is greatly impacted when you see your colleagues not being treated well, the manager or person in question never gets a true reality check on their behaviour and/or to receive the assistance to rectify it, the victims of the unhealthy environment usually suffer in fear, feel alone, bewildered, not supported by colleagues, management and the organization, and complainants are usually labeled as a problem if they choose to fight rather than flight."

On a personal level, members of the victims' support network (e.g. partners, immediate and extended family, friends, colleagues and co-workers) may themselves experience stress, trauma and/or financial expense as a result of a workplace harassment incident. Interpersonal difficulties between the victim and his or her partner—possibly caused by the projection of frustration onto spouses and children—may lead to a diminished family life culminating in family breakdown and dysfunctionality, and possibly even separation or divorce.^{Footnote 15}

As demonstrated above, the impetus for developing and implementing effective solutions to workplace harassment issues is high, in both human and service delivery terms. For an organization such as the RCMP, which delivers service directly to a diverse cross-section of the public in often difficult situations, has an extensive geographical presence, has an iconic stature, and is the subject of unrelenting public scrutiny, the need to develop such solutions is arguably even more acute.

Policies addressing workplace harassment

In order to formulate its recommendations, the Commission examined the current RCMP policy dealing with workplace harassment and identified, through its research, commonly emphasized desirable characteristics of workplace harassment policies and procedures.

RCMP harassment policy and process

The RCMP's current policy, entitled Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace^{Footnote 16}("harassment policy"), is found in Chapter XII of its Administration Manual. It states at the outset:

"The RCMP is committed to providing a safe and respectful work environment, free of discrimination, offensive behavior and harassment."

"Everyone has a responsibility to keep harassment and discrimination out of the workplace and the right to be treated with dignity and respect."

The policy applies in spirit to all people employed by the RCMP, which include supervisors, managers, indeterminate, term and casual employees, students, temporary civilian employees as defined by the RCMP Act, municipal employees, custodial services personnel, employees of other departments and persons working or attending courses on the premises of the RCMP.^{Footnote 16Footnote 17} Its definition of "harassment" is derived from the relevant Treasury Board policy, equally applicable to the RCMP, and provides:

"Harassment is an improper conduct that is offensive to and directed intentionally or unintentionally at another person or persons in the workplace and which the individual knew or ought reasonably to have known would cause offence or harm. It comprises objectionable acts, comments or displays that demean, belittle, or cause personal humiliation or embarrassment, and acts of intimidation or threats. It includes harassment within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, i.e. race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted."

The policy, consistent with other RCMP policies, sets out the expectations and responsibilities of relevant parties in a situation where harassment has been alleged. Specifically, it addresses the expectations of employees, managers, Responsible Officers,^{Footnote 18} Human Resources Officers, Harassment Prevention Coordinators, complainants, respondents and investigators.

Pursuant to the policy, employees are entitled to be free of retaliation or retribution as a result of involvement in a harassment investigation, to review their statements to confirm accuracy prior to the submission of a final report, and to be accompanied by a support person during meetings and interviews relating to the resolution or investigation of a harassment complaint. Employees are responsible for respecting others and their individual differences, reporting objectionable behaviour directed at any other person to their supervisors, cooperating if asked to be a witness during a harassment investigation, and respecting and protecting the confidential nature of complaints.

Managers are expected to lead by example and promote respectful behaviour, be sensitive to signs of harassment and to end such harassment even in the absence of a formal complaint, report harassment as appropriate, monitor situations closely to ensure that parties may continue or resume their assigned duties as possible at the end of an investigation or resolution, ensure that appropriate training is received by employees, handle harassment situations confidentially and ensure same by others, and address the concerns of involved individuals and their units to re-establish respectful working relationships.

Responsible Officers bear the responsibility of making decisions regarding the separation, either physically or hierarchically, of complainants and respondents. Responsible Officers are also to remain impartial, and to determine, in consultation with the Human Resources Officer, when a harassment investigation should be carried out as a Code of Conduct investigation pursuant to Part IV of the RCMP Act. Responsible Officers must also monitor any issuing corrective or disciplinary action, and ensure that investigators are appropriately qualified and are not in a conflict of interest. It is the Responsible Officer who is charged with assigning investigators appropriate mandates to carry out harassment investigations.

Human Resources Officers must ensure that criminal matters are referred to the police of local jurisdiction, ensure that the harassment complaint process is followed, and ensure the confidentiality of complainants. Human Resources Officers must also keep parties informed of the progress of the complaint process, ensure that they have access to support and advice, and offer mediation while ensuring that assigned mediators meet appropriate requirements. Human Resources Officers are responsible for ensuring that new employees are given the appropriate training in respect of workplace harassment. Human Resources Officers may delegate complaint manager responsibilities to any other person.

Harassment Prevention Coordinators are to coordinate the written complaint process, including mediation or investigation, on behalf of the Human Resources Officer. They are charged with assisting parties to ensure that mechanisms to resolve potential harassment situations are accessible. They are also to inform the parties of their rights during the complaint resolution and investigation process.

The policy also sets out general expectations and responsibilities of complainants and respondents. These include, on the part of the complainant, the responsibility for making known to an alleged offender, when appropriate and within a reasonable time, that the complainant believes that he or she has been or is being harassed, and the responsibility for immediately seeking assistance.

With respect to the harassment complaint process itself, the policy provides that whenever appropriate and possible, attempts should be made by all parties to informally resolve harassment situations prior to filing a written complaint. This process includes ensuring that the respondent is aware that his or her behaviour is unacceptable to the complainant, intervening where appropriate, arranging for conciliation or mediation, and ensuring that all parties feel safe and comfortable at all stages of the process.

Where informal resolution has not occurred at the outset, the policy provides that harassment complaints must be made in writing to the Human Resources Officer on a prescribed harassment complaint form (Form 3919) within one year of the alleged harassment.^{Footnote 19} The complaint must include the nature of the allegations, the identity of the respondent and the relationship between the parties, the date and a description of the incident(s), and information relating to any witness. The Human Resources Officer must acknowledge each complaint in writing as soon as possible, and will, as soon as a complaint is filed, inform the respondent that a complaint has been received. The Human Resources Officer also provides the respondent with a copy of the complainant's written allegations, and offers him or her the opportunity to respond to those allegations in writing.

Once a written complaint has been received, the screening process carried out by the Human Resources Officer is engaged. The complaint file may be closed at the outset if a complainant fails to provide information necessary to the clarification of an allegation. Should the file not be immediately closed, the Human Resources Officer must review the complaint to establish whether or not the allegations as set out meet the definition of harassment in the policy, and must make inquiries or seek clarification necessary to fully understand the allegation.

Following this screening process, the Human Resources Officer may determine that the complaint does not appear to relate to harassment. In such a case, the complaint will be directed to the Responsible Officer for a final decision. If that decision is that the allegation is not related to harassment, the Human Resources Officer will inform the complainant and respondent of such in writing, and redirect the complainant to the appropriate avenue of redress.

If the Human Resources Officer determines that the complaint does relate to harassment, he or she will determine whether and what efforts have been made to resolve the issue, identify other avenues of resolution and initiate appropriate action. At this point, mediation will be explored and encouraged where appropriate, and undertaken with the mutual consent of the parties involved.

If mediation was not pursued or unsuccessful, the Human Resources Officer must determine whether or not to initiate a formal harassment investigation. If sufficient information is deemed to exist, the Human Resources Officer may immediately prepare a final decision for referral to the Responsible Officer. If there is a need to establish certain facts surrounding the allegations, the Human Resources Officer will direct that a harassment investigation be conducted.

Harassment investigations initiated at this point in the process may take different forms. If the respondent is an RCMP member subject to the Code of Conduct, the Human Resources Officer will inform the Responsible Officer, who will initiate a Code of Conduct investigation pursuant to Part IV of the RCMP Act if deemed necessary. The policy provides that investigative teams will be representative; i.e. if a complainant is a public service employee, the investigative team should also include a public servant. Should an investigation be pursued, the policy provides that parties may verify the accuracy of their own statements prior to the submission of the final investigation report.

Once the investigation report has been submitted, the Responsible Officer will render a final decision in writing, deeming the complaint founded, partially founded, unfounded or unsubstantiated. The Human Resources Officer will then inform the parties, and both the complainant and respondent will receive a copy of the final decision. The Human Resources Officer is responsible for monitoring any corrective or disciplinary measures issuing from that decision, and reporting on their implementation to the Responsible Officer. Any instances of reprisal or retaliation are to be immediately reported to the Responsible Officer.

Apart from the mechanisms provided under the RCMP's harassment policy, employees maintain their right to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Employees may also initiate a harassment grievance, at which point the process pursuant to the harassment policy, where a formal harassment complaint was filed, will stop and the harassment file closed. Alternatively, a Code of Conduct investigation may be undertaken without a harassment complaint being filed.

The process outlined above may be graphically outlined, in its simplest form, in Figure 1.

Figure 1: RCMP Harassment Complaint Process

Text Version

Figure 1: RCMP Harassment Complaint Process

An allegation of harassment is made. If there is an early resolution, this is the end of the process.

If a written complaint is made, the Human Resources Officer reviews the complaint to establish whether or not the allegations meet the definition of harassment in the policy. If the Human Resources Officer determines that the complaint does not appear to relate to harassment, the complaint will then be directed to the Responsible Officer for a final decision, this is the end of the process. However, if the Human Resources Officer determines that the complaint does relate to harassment, an investigation (only if need be to establish facts surrounding the allegation) will follow. If sufficient information exists, the Human Resources Officer will prepare a final decision for referral to the Responsible Officer, this is the end of the process.

A criminal investigation may also be referred to the agency of jurisdiction if it appears that criminal conduct may exist.

The Human Resources Officer will inform the Responsible Officer, who will initiate a Code of Conduct investigation pursuant to Part IV of the RCMP Act.

Once the investigation report has been submitted, the Responsible Officer will render a final decision. The Human Resources Officer will inform both parties, this is the end of the process.

Independence of the process

Many of the public submissions received and the interviews conducted by the Commission highlighted the desire for the treatment of harassment complaints to be done in an independent manner. Recommendations ranged from having the complaints dealt with by an external body, to having the process be independent of the chain of command.

When the Commission examined the substance of the complaints, submissions and interviews calling for more independence, the basis for the recommendation appeared to relate to several factors: individuals were unhappy with the manner in which the investigation report and investigative materials were presented to the final decision-maker, in most cases the Responsible Officer; individuals felt that appropriate investigative steps were not taken; individuals were concerned that the final decision-maker either insufficiently relied on the investigative materials or relied too heavily on those materials; and individuals were concerned that the final decision-maker displayed bias or a conflict of interest in that he or she was "protecting their own."

"The harassment process is broken. I had no feedback on the investigations. I just found out that they dismissed my allegations on the final report. The reasons for the final dispositions are spurious."

Essentially, the Commission considers that concerns about the independence of the harassment complaint process may best be described as concerns about transparency and consistency. As has been noted, consistency with respect to screening and final decisions was found to be either difficult to discern or lacking in certain cases during the Commission's file review.

"My overall belief at this time is that the managers in the force have little accountability to their subordinates which is carried on up the line to the very top . . . meaning from a corporal right up to the Commissioner."

It would undoubtedly address certain perceptional issues to use external investigators in such cases. For example, one Canadian police service has a roster of external investigators mutually approved by employee representatives and senior management in place. Both complainants and respondents are provided the opportunity to verify that there is not any conflict of interest between themselves and the chosen investigator. However, this practice is not widespread, and even when it is in place investigations continue to be remitted to an organizational decision-maker given the need for an organization to be able to direct its administration and thereby discharge its obligation as employer. Although perceptionally desirable in its simplest form, such a practice would not address all of the concerns raised with respect to the independence of the process. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the implementation of certain standards short of instituting an external process may address issues relating to the independence of the harassment complaint process, and allow complainants, respondents and the organization itself to be more confident in fair and impartial investigations into all formal workplace conflict or harassment complaints.

First, centralized monitoring and coordination of all decisions in respect of harassment would ensure consistency in the application of factors used to determine whether workplace conflict is present or harassment has occurred, whether and how separation of the parties should be implemented, and any remedial or disciplinary action that is merited. In order to address the perception of conflict of interest within divisional command, such centralized monitoring and coordination should be located at RCMP national headquarters. Those responsible should report directly to a senior executive outside the divisional chain of command structures, such as the RCMP's Professional Integrity Officer.^{Footnote 28} This would allow dissemination of harassment-related data as appropriate in respect of other human resources processes, such as promotions, as well as expertise and consistency being developed. The centralized monitoring and coordination function, outside the chain of command, should also be responsible for receiving complaints of retaliation, the procedure for which should be clearly delineated in the applicable policy.

Second, clearly defined investigative standards, supported by appropriate training for harassment investigators, would address perceived deficiencies in the body of information available to assist decision-makers, as would greater complainant and respondent input into the materials that are put forward. Such input would ensure that information before a decision-maker is comprehensive and neutrally presented. Recommendations in this respect are laid out below.

Finally, the availability of an external mechanism for review of harassment decisions would ensure that employees are able to have concerns relating to the process addressed by an impartial third party, where necessary, without having to access the time-consuming grievance process.

An individual may in theory grieve any decision made in the course of his or her harassment complaint being dealt with by the Force. Grievances of this nature are referred to the RCMP External Review Committee, at the option of a grievor, when he or she is dissatisfied with the initial decision of an RCMP grievance adjudicator. Pursuant to the RCMP Act and its Regulations, the External Review Committee is charged with reviewing grievances relating to the interpretation and application of government-wide policies that apply to members of the RCMP. These include the current RCMP harassment policy, which is by requirement derived from the Treasury Board policy, notwithstanding the existence of the Code of Conduct investigation procedure and related sanctions to which other public service employees are not subject. The consideration of such a grievance may prove lengthy. Also, grievances may be lodged at any point, thus having the potential of forestalling the completion of the harassment complaint and investigation process, and causing further delays.

Being an employment matter, the final decision in respect of any grievance, including those referred to the External Review Committee, rests with the RCMP Commissioner. The Commissioner must provide reasons for disagreeing with any of the External Review Committee's recommendations in respect of a grievance.

An external mechanism for review of harassment decisions pursuant to an RCMP-specific, streamlined harassment policy, is a possibility afforded by Bill C-42. This possibility could avoid the necessity of individuals filing a harassment complaint pursuant to policy, being dissatisfied with a decision made in the course of the treatment of such a complaint, subsequently filing a grievance, and awaiting disposition of that grievance by an adjudicator prior to being able to access the external review mechanism. In addition, it would provide an outlet for those dissatisfied with the treatment of their harassment complaints separate from, but not excluding, the RCMP's labour relations process.

The Commission considers that these recommendations, coupled with those set out below, would address in large part the concerns expressed in relation to the independence of the harassment complaint process without going so far as to require administration of the process by an independent body.

The definition of harassment

The definition of harassment as contained in the RCMP's policy is crucial to the treatment of each harassment complaint made, as it represents the threshold above which further steps in the process may be taken. It mirrors that of the Treasury Board policy relating to the prevention of harassment and the treatment of harassment complaints. As outlined above, formal complaints are screened at first instance to determine whether the behaviour complained of is capable of constituting harassment; if it is not, complaint files will be closed and complainants may be directed to another avenue of redress. If the definition of harassment is met or could be met if the allegations were found to be substantiated, either a Code of Conduct or harassment investigation must issue if further facts need to be established.

Many of those who made submissions and were interviewed identified the difficulty of harassment complaints being screened in at first instance. In addition, the Commission's file review revealed that the application of the definitional standard was, at best, inconsistent among RCMP divisions, individual Human Resources Officers and Responsible Officers. While no examples of blatant disregard for the definitional threshold existed, it is nonetheless trite to say that the definition is capable of a wide range of reasonable interpretations, while at the same time appearing to exclude others. For example, in determining that certain behaviour does not constitute harassment within the meaning of the policy, RCMP decision-makers were found to, in most cases, acknowledge that "workplace conflict" did exist. The suggestion is that workplace conflict is a precursor or contributor to a harassment situation, but the policy nonetheless precludes the relatively rigorous investigation and assessment that is afforded to complaints once they meet the definitional threshold of "harassment". This approach appears not to give sufficient consideration to the idea that workplace conflict, appropriately addressed, may diminish the later incidence of harassment, and is in itself important enough to address.

Equally, the policy employs inconsistent language that could be confusing to both employees and managers/supervisors. For example, the governing statements at the outset of the policy use varying references to the same issue, while an early paragraph refers to "discrimination, offensive behavior and harassment", suggesting that these are three mutually exclusive issues, the definition of "harassment" contained in the policy encompasses both "discrimination" and "offensive behavior". A subsequent paragraph refers only to "harassment and discrimination", not "offensive behavior", while later statements refer only to "harassment". In reference to the responsibilities of every RCMP employee, the policy states that they must "... report behavior that offends, harms, humiliates, or degrades anyone including himself/herself to his/her supervisor/manager ...." This does not, however, include other results from the behaviour, listed in the policy's definition of harassment, such as demeans, belittles, embarrasses, intimidates or threatens.

The ambiguity and lack of consistency outlined above contribute to difficulty in applying the definition of harassment which, as noted above, is the threshold for application of the action items of the policy.

"I think harassment can exist and in fact is rampant in the RCMP but is often not viewed as such. I think that if a supervisor and a subordinate have a disagreement and then the supervisor then begins to exercise his power unfairly over that member then there is bullying and harassment ... I believe that improper use of power over a subordinate over a long period of time constitutes harassment as opposed to workplace conflict."

"They told me that to be classified as harassment, it has to have a very high tolerance. They advised me to instead settle this informally .... They were discouraging me from making a formal harassment complaint."

A coherent and sufficiently broad definition of the conduct being addressed by a harassment policy is not easily elaborated. Workplace harassment, in all of its manifestations, is a broad topic. There remains no consensus in the literature with respect to the definition of workplace harassment, although, as above, workplace policies will generally set out a working definition for the application of the policy or procedure used to address harassment.

The concept of workplace harassment continues to evolve and expand, and now encompasses conduct such as bullying, mobbing, psychological harassment and violence in the workplace.^{Footnote 29} Despite decades of research, workplace harassment is still, in some respects, poorly understood. The existing literature clearly highlights the nebulous and problematic nature of the concept of harassment. Because the variety of behaviours and actions that may be covered under the general rubric of "workplace harassment" is so broad, the limits of acceptable behaviours is often so ambiguous, and the perception in different contexts and cultures of what constitutes harassment is so varied, the phenomenon is challenging to both describe and define.^{Footnote 30}

Clearly defining workplace harassment is challenging because if the chosen parameters are too narrow, there is a risk of over-concentrating on what are essentially the sensational and overt forms of workplace harassment. What has clearly emerged through the Commission's review is that any definition of harassment used in practice as a threshold question for the application of a policy designed to foster a respectful workplace must aim towards inclusivity. If only those behaviours deemed most egregious are capable of meeting the threshold for application, equally important precursors to harassment, such as workplace conflict, are ignored. Workplace conflict, as has been noted throughout the review, may also have devastating impacts on those involved, despite not meeting the definitional threshold of harassment in the policy.

Required standards for harassment investigations

One recurring theme that became apparent during the review of the submissions to the Commission and its interviews, as well as the review of harassment policies of different Canadian police services, was the need for specially trained harassment investigators to undertake workplace harassment investigations.

The need for robust harassment investigations is clearly illustrated in a case involving the Toronto Police Service. In 2007, a female constable filed a complaint against one of her male supervisors, citing a total of nine instances of sexual harassment. In response, the accused supervisor filed four complaints about the complainant, alleging insubordination, among other things. The constable's complaints were investigated by an internal investigator who had never investigated an internal workplace harassment complaint before, nor received workplace harassment investigation training. The investigator did not make a finding of harassment, alleging that since there was no independent evidence to support the complainant's claims, they could not be supported. Because her allegations of sexual harassment were not supported, the complainant was terminated on the belief that her allegations were fabrications and indicative of attitude and conduct issues.

The complainant took her case to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal found that not only had she been sexually harassed, but that the investigation into her complaints was flawed in that it did not take into account past accusations of sexual harassment against the complainant's supervisor, and had disregarded witnesses in the situation. The Tribunal awarded the complainant $12,000 for injury to her feelings, self-respect and dignity and a further $8,000 for the flawed investigation. Further, the Toronto Police Service was ordered to hire a human rights consultant to train its internal investigators on how to properly investigate workplace harassment complaints.^{Footnote 31}

The cost of an inadequate workplace harassment investigation can be high to police services, and the need to have properly trained investigators is clear. Harassment investigators should be acutely aware of the fact that the majority of perpetrators attempt to displace the blame onto the victim. After an incident has been alleged, the immediate reactions from the police leadership "... will set the tone for the agency and will determine whether the organization will be able to appropriately deal with the allegations and provide a fair and just outcome. The most crucial step, therefore, is to assign a competent investigator and conduct a thorough and unbiased investigation in a timely manner while protecting the complainant from retaliation."^{Footnote 32}

As per the Treasury Board's Investigation Guide for the Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace,^{Footnote 33} "Harassment investigations require that investigators not only have the knowledge and the research, planning, interviewing and analytical skills, they must also be sensitive to the emotional issues and the impact that an alleged harassment situation has on individuals and on the workplace as a whole."

It should be noted that currently, as police officers, RCMP members are deemed to meet the competency profile for investigators required by the Treasury Board policy. However, the Commission identified through its file review, review of public submissions and interviews, as well as discussion with RCMP managers, investigators and Staff Relations Representatives, that RCMP members tasked with investigating issues of harassment would greatly benefit from the five-day course offered to public service harassment investigators. While RCMP members may possess expert investigative skills, issues of workplace harassment engage specific concerns and sensitivities, outlined above, that are not similarly engaged by routine criminal, or even professional standards, investigations. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that harassment investigators receive mandatory specialized training in respect of conducting investigations into workplace conflict and/or harassment prior to being tasked with such investigations. What is required is a shift in focus from investigating and punishing perceived harassers to the early resolution of workplace conflict and a more holistic approach to restoring healthy relationships.

In addition to required training, clearly defined investigative standards specifically in respect of harassment investigations ought to be developed in order to address perceived deficiencies in the body of information available to assist decision-makers, identified in the public submissions received and interviews conducted by the Commission. Such standards ought to include a requirement for audio- or videotaped interviews, as well as the ability of both complainants and respondents to provide input in respect of the investigative report being presented to the final decision-maker.

"The RCMP write[s] reports with a predetermined outcome, and then gather[s] the information they want to hear. If the RCMP would write reports knowing that they will be read by the complain[ant], I am certain the reports will be written with more accuracy and transparency."

This would echo the process available to RCMP members in respect of internal discipline, and would ensure that information before a decision-maker is comprehensive and neutrally presented.

Additionally, every effort should be made to complete an investigation in a timely manner. A protracted process can cause difficulties and challenges. For example, as time passes, people's memories of the event may fade, thus potentially affecting the reliability of the evidence gathered. Another concern is the ongoing and deleterious health effects of stress and anxiety experienced by all of those involved in a given investigation.^{Footnote 34} A repeated theme throughout the interviews and submissions, as well as often identified throughout the file review, was the often lengthy investigative process for harassment complaints, during which both complainants and respondents are left awaiting a decision and may be enduring separation from their normal work units.

"... this whole process is engineered to exhaust the victim and prevent them from going straight to legal counsel rather than solving the problem."

Lengthy delays in the resolution of harassment complaints may be partly attributable to the multiplicity of processes that may be brought to bear on such issues, including grievances at various stages of the process. Amendments to the RCMP Act, contemplated by the current Bill C-42, provide for the ability of RCMP management to adopt and implement its own structure for dealing with harassment complaints. Should the bill become law, the RCMP will be provided with some ability to streamline the operation of any processes which may be engaged in order that the timely resolution of an issue can occur.

In light of the foregoing, the Commission recommends that the RCMP implement and publicly report on timelines for the treatment of harassment complaints, including for efforts at early resolution. Compliance with such timelines should be centrally monitored on a continuous basis in order to ensure that potential problems are identified at an early stage.

Training and prevention

Evaluation

As noted above, harassment within the RCMP workplace is not a new issue. Efforts have been made at several junctures to attempt to address the issue, but it is unclear to what degree those efforts have been successful. It is apparent that unqualified success has not been achieved, judging from media reports, litigation and the Commissioner's own public statements. Comprehensive evaluation of any efforts taken needs to occur in order that salutary effects of changes in policy and process may be recognized and built upon, and such that changes which are not having the desired effect may be revisited.

The importance of evaluation cannot be understated:

"[W]hen a prevention program is being offered, it gives the impression that "something is being done." However, the reality is that it is unclear whether the program makes any difference ... Ineffective programs can cause significant harm because they may meet an institution's burden of doing something about sexual harassment without having any effect on the bottom line: reducing the incidence of sexual harassment.^{Footnote 44}"

It is paramount, then, for senior management to "[e]valuate the ... [anti-] harassment policy and training programs in an ongoing way both to better understand their effectiveness and to implement continuous improvement."^{Footnote 45}

Significant investments are made each year by organizations in the training of employees, supervisors and managers in an effort to prevent and reduce the incidence of workplace harassment. Significant time and resources are also devoted to the investigation of harassment complaints and civil lawsuits. A similar amount of resources must be put into the evaluation of anti-harassment policies and programs that have been developed and implemented.