# 2016-165 - Recorded Warning, Remedial Measures

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–06–09

The grievor, a Regular Force officer, complained that he was given a Recorded Warning (RW) for failing to report a personal relationship he had with another member of his unit. The grievor contended that he was not obliged to report the relationship unless he considered that it could adversely impact the unit's mission capability and he judged that his relationship offered no such threat.

The Initial Authority (IA) found, on a balance of probabilities, that the grievor was aware of his obligation to report the relationship to the Commanding Officer (CO), under both the Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5019-1, Personal Relationships and Fraternization, and the Unit Standing Orders. As such, the IA concluded that the RW was reasonable and denied the grievance.

The Committee found that the grievor's relationship had the potential to negatively impact the unit and that the grievor should have been aware of his duty to report it to his chain of command.

The Committee also found that after the Deputy CO was made aware of the relationship by the unit Administration Officer, he failed to take appropriate action to fulfill his responsibility to uphold the personal relationship policy by bringing the circumstances of the relationship to the attention of the CO.

Finally, the Committee agreed with the grievor that the RW was not properly administered. The Committee also objected to the RW depicting the relationship as inappropriate because the grievor was an officer and the other member was not. The Committee found no support for this view within current Canadian Armed Forces policies.

The Committee recommended that the RW be rescinded and that all documentation referring to the RW be revised or rescinded as necessary.

FA Decision Summary

The Final Authority (FA) found that the grievor had been aggrieved and partially granted the redress sought. The FA agreed with the Committee that the grievor should have been aware of his duty to report his relationship. However, the FA found that, given the grievor's rank and years of experience, there was a higher expectation on him to report the relationship than there would be on a more junior member; thus he disagreed that the policy was applied inconsistently.

The FA disagreed with the Committee's finding that the RW was administratively deficient and not justified. The FA found that the delay in issuing the RW was regrettable, but did not justify removal of the RW. The FA also found that the inaction of the Deputy CO regarding the relationship did not negate the responsibility of the grievor to report the relationship.

The FA did not address whether the fact that the relationship had involved members of different ranks had been a factor in the RW.

The FA considered the grievor's record of good conduct apart from the failure to report the relationship and determined that the RW should be replaced with an Initial Counselling.