Editorial (Lethbridge Herald) – No reason for officer’s grievance to still be unresolved after five years
The RCMP has sometimes displayed a tendency toward tardiness in dealing with complaints and the response time doesn’t seem to be any faster for complaints originating from within the police force.
At least it hasn’t for Alberta Mountie Gerry Hoyland, whose plight was detailed in a Canadian Press story in Monday’s Lethbridge Herald.
Hoyland has been waiting for more than five years for something to be done about the harassment complaint he lodged in early 2006 over a series of incidents at the Stony Plain detachment. This past May, an independent review body which handles grievances from RCMP officers determined Hoyland had been the target of insults and threats. This came three years after his initial complaint was dismissed, partly because pranks were common at the detachment.
The “pranks” Hoyland says he endured included repeated insults, having pornography left in his office, finding the seat at his desk soaking wet, and having his face superimposed on the body of a newspaper’s “Sunshine Boy” and attached to the back of an unsuspecting co-worker’s vehicle.
The department may have viewed these incidents as harmless pranks, but the threats of violence Hoyland says he received can’t – or shouldn’t – be brushed off so lightly. Even the so-called pranks should be viewed in their true light – as harassment.
Most workplaces these days have fairly strict guidelines in place governing harassment of employees, and well-run businesses or departments deal with such cases promptly. One would expect a law enforcement agency to be in that category, but apparently that’s not the case; not in this instance, at any rate.
William Elliott, the soon-to-be-former RCMP commissioner, acknowledges the problem but offered only excuses, noting he simply needed more time to deal with grievances such as Hoyland’s. Elliott says the RCMP has actually made “a fair amount of progress in speeding things up” by fine-tuning procedures.
Elliott’s assessment of the situation might well be accurate. He might have precious little time to deal with all the grievances that cross his desk. If that’s the case, it points to a system that needs revamping within the department. If the system can’t handle all the grievances being funnelled toward the commissioner’s office, perhaps there’s a need for more funnels along the way. Surely Hoyland’s issue could have been handled without going all the way up the ladder.
No matter what the workplace, there’s no reason for any harassment complaint to drag on unresolved for five years. Information from Work Safe Alberta classifies harassment as including any “unsolicited and unwelcome conduct, comment, gesture or contact which causes offence or humiliation.” Based on those guidelines, it certainly sounds as though what Hoyland experienced was not just pranks, it was harassment.
Having a grievance go unresolved for five years just adds insult to injury.
[Source]
Another factor would be the ever shifting definition of harassment. DT
Keeping in mind everything that is said; It is the perception of the person being harassed if it is indeed harassment. The harasser may not see it as harassment but it is not that person’s call. Just don’t do it or say it!
People’s perceptions are their reality. One of the hardest things to do is to meet other people at their model of the world.
Good police officers do that everyday.
Calvin Lawrence
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
16
Another factor would be the ever shifting definition of harassment. Where one person would find a wet seat hilarious, another would take it as a deep seated symbol of the animosity of their co-workers, a dark conspiracy. There have been cases of harassment defined as not holding the elevator door long enough, wearing colors the other person does not like, perfume that offends, ‘deliberately’ flaunting expensive jewelry to belittle someone of less means, and the list goes on.
Legitimate harassment is of course not to be tolerated. IMO that would include harassment of a sexual/race/religion/orientation nature, directed derogatory language, obscene gestures, ongoing physical intimidation and the like.
A female firefighter having feces put into her safety boots cannot be compared to having a wet chair seat. Exactly where does a prank for Bill become a harassment situation for Joe? One could opine that it is when one person takes it thus. The thorns there however could be taken to the ridiculous as I noted above.
“unsolicited and unwelcome conduct, comment, gesture or contact which causes offence or humiliation.” is the definition espoused in the article. So the expletive “holy mackerel” to a devoutly religious person could fall under that. Witness the outrage of some Muslims with respect to cartoons lampooning the “Prophet”. Free speech? But only in the papers?
Could some of the delay be perhaps because the level of inanity has no bounds? What are the repercussions of false complaints? What does a completely sanitized workplace/schoolyard/home/public transit environment look like? Do you want to dwell/work there? Is horse-troughing harassment?
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
18 
8
What the public fails to understand is that alleged harassment as described in policing is different from an office setting. The real concern is; will the alleged harasser come to the assistance of the harassed member in a life and death situation? Try living with that situation everyday for five years.
The other factor to consider is; if the harassed member will make costly policing mistakes because of the prolonged pressure.
Waiting for five years is nothing more than a deliberate delay. Delay is the worst form of denial.
Calvin Lawrence
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
16