First and foremost, our role is to ensure that we have all the facts before us, because without all the facts, it's inappropriate for us to suggest a course of action for that particular circumstance. Once we have the facts, the next logical step would be to fully inform our member of the various means available to deal with the particular issue, and depending upon the severity of the issue, the duration, the time, and the environment, we will make one or another recommendation, such as I mentioned in my earlier testimony.
So we will advise them of the pros and cons of doing things one way versus another. It depends on what process is chosen. For example, with the internal harassment complaint process, there is no right to representation under Treasury Board policy and guidelines, but under the grievance process, there is a right to representation. So depending on the process that is chosen, the employee may or may not proceed on their own on a harassment complaint with advice and guidance but no direct representation, or an employee may proceed with a grievance where the union representative will be present with the employee throughout the various levels of the process.
Again, depending on the nature of the issue, we may recommend a filing of a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which will be set aside until normal redress measures are utilized and finalized within a particular department, and again, depending on the nature of the incidents, we may recommend pursuing a complaint under regulation 20 of the Canada Labour Code, Part II - Occupational Health and Safety.
It depends on the circumstances. There are no unions that I know of that have a cookie-cutter formula for this. Every case is reviewed on the information available to us, the merit, and a number of other factors before advice is given.