Schedule R

3 March 2021

CDS Directive for CAF Grievance System Enhancement

References:

Info Brief to VCDS 12 November 2020
Orientation Meeting DVCDS // DCFGA 28 October 2020
CAF ICRTS Grievance Portfolio, 1 October 2020
DAOD 2017 series, Military Grievance
CDS, Delegation of Powers, Duties and Functions as Final Authority in the Grievance Process 22 September 2020
CMP Directive for Grievance Administration and Coordination dated 21 Oct 2020
National Defence Act

Background

1. The Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) personnel management approaches are evolving in step with the sensibilities and expectations of all Canadians for respectful, fulfilling workplaces free of harassment, interpersonal and institutional conflicts. Our obligation to care for our people must remain paramount, and our support to and participation in the CAF grievance system is no exception. CAF leadership culture, and policy must continue to evolve, in particular where grievances are concerned, which will require that we help one another as we listen, learn, and act, with people firmly at the heart of our business.

Integrated Conflict and Complaint Management (ICCM)

2. Now in its fourth year, the ICCM system is coming into its own, with grievances, harassment and charter challenges, service delivery through regional centres and training residing under one Director General to support the Defence Team. Its emphasis on a collaborative approach to managing conflict centred on self-help is allowing members to understand and embrace the importance of their individual efforts in participation, contribution and diligence and how these individual efforts contribute to the safety and well-being of all members in their working environments.

Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (CFGA)

3. CFGA oversees the CAF grievance system and administers the submission of grievances by our members. Its value proposition lies in its identification of systemic gaps in DND/CAF policies, its contributions to the righting of wrongs, its capacity to achieve a judicious balance between the needs of members and service demands and its unique positioning as a direct communicator of my intent when it comes to the adjudication of grievances and, at times, the influencing of antiquated policy.

Problem Definition

4. As of 1 February 2021, there were 654 grievances registered at the Initial Authority (IA) level and 696 grievances registered at the Final Authority (FA) level, for a total of 1350 grievances awaiting resolution across the CAF. Despite the challenges we all face as a result of operational demands, resource constraints and strategic threats like COVID-19, this is unacceptable, and does little to inspire trust in our sailors, soldiers and aviators. Collectively, we must do better. How we respond to this challenge can make or break our institutional credibility as well as our ability to re-build trust with those we lead.

5. The recent launch of the third Independent Review of the National Defence Act (NDA), a review mandated by Parliament and ordered by the Minister of National Defence, aims to assess how effectively the NDA and its regulations are working with respect to the military justice, policing and grievance systems.

6. The CAF grievance system (CAFGS) needs attention to regain and maintain trust and credibility. This has led to a CAFFGS review and action plan formulation spanning the short, mid-, and long-term. As with any system, the CAFGS must continuously evolve to not only support the members it was designed to serve but to contribute to the CAF’s professional autonomy where conflict and complaint management is concerned. This will take team-work and commitment by all to set into motion. The status quo could result in the removal of the grievance system from the CAF for execution by a civilian external, independent body. The failure to afford our personnel a CAF-owned mechanism through which to provide recourse for its members calls into question our very status as a profession and undermines the very principles of command.

7. To this end, I have directed that an action plan – which includes both direction to Initial Authorities and planning guidance for mid- and long-term initiatives – be led and implemented by Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DCFGA), with this document serving as the basis of the Director’s authority to enact immediate change.

Desired Effects

8. At the strategic level, the aim of this reinvigoration of the CAFGS is to regain CAF grievance credibility both internally and externally. Operationally, the development and implementation of a sustainable CAFGS is key. This will include, as flagship initiatives, the investigation and implementation of an “off-ramp” for policy-centric grievances I do not have the authority to grant as well as a PER contestation process outside of the CAFGS. Finally, at the tactical level, this refresh of the grievance system is aimed at increasing CAFGS credibility with CAF personnel through timely yet fair and balanced adjudication.

Direction to Initial Authorities

9. General. In 2019, 1001 grievances were registered in comparison with 2018, which saw 1124 grievances registrations. This said, ICCM is beginning to observe a modest reduction in grievance registration. There has also been a noted increase in informal resolutions, with this attributed to the decrease in grievance registrations as a consequence of fewer issues escalating to formal mechanisms.

10. This decrease in formal grievance registration is expected to yield an improvement in the Initial Authority (IA) compliance rate for registering and processing grievances within prescribed timelines. With respect to compliance, IAs are mandated to render grievance decisions at their level within a 120-day window. When files extend past this marker, compliance percentages drop. IA compliancy remains steady at approximately 20% across CAF L1s. This marks a downward trend that has continued over the past several years, falling significantly short of an ultimate target of 80% and reinforcing the need for L1s to act.

11. There is significant command value associated with the expedient processing of grievances by IAs. While ICCM continues to assist IAs through the provision of grievance analyst training, templates and guidance, compliance ultimately comes down to IA engagement and prioritization.

12. The CAFGS is not designed for senior CAF leadership, though some may indeed leverage the system; rather, it is for those we lead to empower and give them a voice. This demands that we collectively “do better” through creative processes, chain of command engagement, risk assessment and mitigation, the leveraging of ICCM resources like the sixteen (16) Conflict and Complaint Management System (CCMS) centres across the country for informal resolution options and policy advice, and – most importantly – ownership where grievances are involved.

13. All this said, I direct the following with respect to IAs from the L1 to L4 levels for immediate action:

IA Adjudication Timelines. Grievances will adhere to time limitations prescribed by regulations. However, an increase in IA adjudication timelines under a previous Independent Review of the NDA has ultimately resulted in a lower rate of compliance (decrease from 60-65% to 20%). Failing to respond to grievances in a timely manner leads to negative perceptions of CAF leadership, both internally by our sailors, soldiers and aviators and externally by Canadians. We need to fix this. IAs below the 80% target, less CMP given its own backlog initiative set to commence in January 2021, will have 8-months to demonstrate at least a 60% compliance rate. While this is not a hard right shoulder, I do expect that leadership across the CAF demonstrate re-investment into the grievance system and that a concerted effort be made to improve IA compliance statistics. Director CFGA will, on my behalf, engage L1 principles as required on a monthly basis to discuss compliance rates and possible solution space. Should IAs fail to heed this direction and not demonstrate commitment to getting their grievance house in order, I could consider the reduction of adjudication timelines at the L3/L4 level from 120-days to 90-days. A FRAGO would follow should this be required to clearly articulate implications. While increased compliance is the objective, I offer that caution must be exercised to ensure that we do not sacrifice quality of analysis and procedural fairness for speed; this would merely result in increased files pushed to the FA for adjudication, thus negating net gains. Effects desired include increased IA compliancy, decreased wait time for IA decisions, and increased trust in the CAFGS through timely responses to grievances.
Grievance Re-prioritization and Resource Re-allocation. The re-investment of effort and focus into the CAF grievance system is one of my priorities. It is important not only to deliver on our mandate to those we lead, but to re-gain and maintain institutional credibility in this regard. Understanding, however, the myriad demands for increasingly constrained resources, I expect commanders to re-allocate current resources to achieve articulated objectives.
Exceeding IA Adjudication Time Limits. If IAs at the L3/L4 levels exceed their 120-day adjudication time limit, they must advise their higher headquarters (HQ) through their N1/G1/A1/J1 directed grievance POC via email. Effects desired include increased leader accountability and greater grievance status transparency and situational awareness across HQs.
IA Grievance Reporting. Due to ICRTS limitations, monthly grievance statistics are generated on a “push” basis by DGICCM to all L1 POCs. While this practice will continue, L1 HQs must provide effective oversight of subordinate formations, especially whereby non-compliancy is deemed a trend. Director CFGA will engage delinquent L1s as required. Effects desired again include increased leader accountability and greater grievance status transparency and situational awareness across HQs.
Pre-Grievance CCMS Consultation. Leadership at all levels are strongly encouraged to promote the leveraging of regional Conflict and Complaint Management System (CCMS) centres by personnel considering a grievance prior to its submission. CCMS not only provide advice and informal resolution options, but are also able to leverage CMP/MPC’s Directorate Administrative Response Centre (DARC) which has, on numerous occasions, provided policy clarity and options that resulted in no grievance submitted. While a grievor cannot be compelled to engage CCMS prior to making a grievance submission, CCMS are force multipliers in the informal resolution of conflict and complaints and the provision of policy guidance across the Defence Team, and their engagement by members who are considering submitting a grievance or who have submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) to grieve should be encouraged by the chain of command. To promote the use of CCMS in resolving complaints prior to them becoming grievances, IAs shall consider it in the interests of justice to accept a grievance that was submitted beyond the time limit when the member has engaged CCMS within the time limit.
Jurisdictional Reviews. A redress authority may accept a grievance that was submitted after the expiration of the applicable time limit if they are satisfied, based on the reasons for the delay provided by the grievor, that it is in the interests of justice to consider and determine the grievance. If, in the opinion of the redress authority, the delay was caused by a circumstance which was unforeseen, unexpected or beyond the control of the grievor, and the grievance was submitted within a reasonable period of time after the circumstance occurred, the redress authority should normally be satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to consider the grievance. In particular at the L3/L4 level, commanding officers should remain as flexible as possible when it comes to grievances submitted outside of timelines. An IA who is not satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to consider a grievance submitted after the expiration of the time limit must provide the grievor with reasons in writing, including notification that the grievor may request the forwarding of their grievance to the FA for consideration and determination. To shape IA jurisdiction decisions, very few grievances are rejected at the FA from a jurisdictional perspective in accordance with Federal Court guidance and with the best interests of our members at heart.
Implementation of Decisions. Direction from a redress authority to a DND or CAF organization responsible for implementing a decision must be carried out within 60 days. An organization that cannot meet that requirement must notify the redress authority and the grievor in writing of the delay and the reason for it. Director CFGA will continue to provide quarterly updates to me regarding implementation.

14. The manner in which we address grievances – or not – can make or break CAF credibility and grievance professional autonomy moving forward. Leadership at all levels must make the adjudication of grievances a priority, as this contributes to the fostering of a supportive, healthy and respectful work environment whereby the holistic well-being of CAF members is paramount.

Planning Guidance

15. Beyond my direction to IAs, effective immediately, there exist a number of CAFGS initiatives that – due to their complexity, implication of multiple key stakeholders, and legal advice requirements – demand time and space to collaboratively plan and execute. As a result, the following planning direction and guidance provides a framework within which DCFGA, the CFGA team and other L1s can plan and execute these initiatives on my behalf.

Execution

16. CDS Intent. My intent is to provide CAF members with a comprehensive and effective grievance management and adjudication system, to ensure that grievances are quickly and efficiently addressed within mandated timelines, and to better deliver on our mandate to deliver timely, well-reasoned and balanced decisions to our personnel. To achieve this intent, CFGA will lead the planning and implementation of a number of mid- to long-term initiatives designed to address FA and IA backlogs, stream-line current processes, set conditions for future support to CAFGS mission success.

17. Objectives:

Establish a forum within which to collaborate WRT grievance initiatives.
Reduce outstanding grievance backlog by no less than 50% (677 files) over the next 12-months.
Achieve and sustain an IA compliance rate of at least 80%.
Establish an FA grievance surge capability ISO IAs.

Address CFGA staff succession planning to enable long-term team stability.

18. Planning Authority. Under the auspices of Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DCFGA), who reports directly to myself, a collaborative working group will be established to address the achievement of articulated CAFGA objectives over the mid- to long-term.

19. Main Effort. The main effort is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of grievance administration with the CAFGS, enabling the FA and IAs to adjudicate grievances fairly and consistently within the timeframes stipulated at reference E.

20. End State. The end-state will be achieved when the grievance backlog is resolved at the FA and IA levels, at least 80% of all grievances are processed within the mandated timelines, efficiency measures transition from “proof of concept” to sustained CAFGS practice, and the grievance system feeds more seamlessly into the policy development process.

Key Initiative Planning Guidance

21. Reduce the FA and IA backlog. Conditions-setting is currently on-going to address these significant backlogs. At the FA-level, this has meant the creation of a small Tiger Team and the development of an expedited process for low risk files that will see decision letters cut from the traditional 6 to 22 pages down to 2 to 4. The Tiger Team has commenced with the processing of low risk files via the expedited process.

22. Critical to the development of this expedited process for low risk files is that it is intended to transition from a backlog tool to a sustained practice at the FA and IA levels. This said, it is anticipated that this will occur over an 18-month period, with process refinement achieved through FA backlog efforts over the initial 6 months, with a paradigm shift and process integration at the CFGA level occurring at the 6-12 month mark, with lessons learned and business planning leveraged to institutionalize the expedited process across the CAFGS. Key to this initiative will be the triage of files that meet the criteria for the expedited process.

23. Envisioned end-state sees full operating capability (FOC) being reached at APS 22, with the delivery of a more agile and sustainable grievance system whereby files are managed based on their complexity and not the order they arrived, focusing on delivering faster grants and well-considered denies.

24. At the IA-level, noting that CMP accounts for over 60% of the backlog with 405 files, CMP released its directive for grievance administration and coordination at reference F. Led by the DARC, this directive lays out a plan to resolve CMP/MPC’s grievance backlog, achieve an IA compliancy rate of at least 80%, support its subordinate formations in the resolution of their grievances, and support the determination of all CMP/MPC L1-based grievances. CMP’s efforts are seen as complementary to those planned at the FA-level, and are truly reflective of owning the problem. Backlog efforts at the IA and FA levels will commence in Winter 2021.

25. Achieve an IA compliance rate of not less than 80%. Initiatives as per paragraph 13, sub-paragraphs (a) through (g).

26. Establish an “off-ramp” process for policy-centric grievances in concert with (ICW) CMP. Many of the CAF’s Compensation and Benefits (C&B) policies are approved by Treasury Board (TB). While I can review the application or interpretation of the policy, I cannot amend it, nor do I have any flexibility to interpret it in a way that was not intended. In short, I cannot grant any grievance whereby the grievor’s only request for redress is that a TB policy be amended or interpreted contrary to the plain language of the article. To address these specific files, CFGA is to work closely with CMP/MPC’s DARC to develop a DARC-centric “off-ramp” process that will see these files flagged early and “diverted” from the grievance process to receive a policy centric analysis. Should a systemic policy issue be identified, CMP would be responsible to prepare a letter for my signature to any implicated external departments to give weight to reforms. While file numbers are small, accounting for less than 1% of all grievances at the FA, the financial implications are generally substantial. Ideally, my intent sees the implementation of this process across the CAFGS and, ideally, the FA will only very rarely see this type of grievance once we have properly communicated and executed the new process, diverting files before or at the time they reach the IA. DCFGA supported, CMP and JAG supporting.

27. Investigate an alternate PER contestation process in concert with CMP. While reference D has seen the delegation of PER FA to specified L2 Comds, PERs still account for 25% of annual grievances registered. This is significant, with the grievance process not lending itself to early, local and timely adjudication of these very personal files. The development of an alternate PER adjudication process outside of the CAFGS as part of the PaCE implementation is to be investigated ICW CMP (DGMC). Intent is to create a process that keeps the majority of PERs out of CFGA while still affording members procedural fairness, minimizing the perception of bias and giving members a voice. DGMC and legal collaboration will be critical to driving this initiative forward. CMP supported, DCFGA and JAG supporting.

28. Staff a regulatory change to QR&O 7.15. Reference G currently reflects a “one size fits all” 120-days for IA adjudication, regardless of IA level (L4 through L1). While grievances at the L3/L4 level may be time consuming, those at the L1/L2 levelstend to be highly complex, multi-faceted, generally policy-implicating, span L1s and requiring of legal review and/or advice. Acknowledging file complexity, and with a view to reducing the number of files referred to the FA without an IA decision having been rendered, a regulatory change to QR&O 7.15 will be sought to afford L1 IAs as well as CMP L2s 180-days to render a decision. DCFGA supported, JAG supporting.

Groupings and Tasks

29. The following tasks assigned:

Common to All.
1. Implement direction to IAs at paragraph 13 effective immediately.
2. BPT provide CAFGS Initiatives Working Group(s) (WGs) as requested.
DCFGA.
1. Continued execution of duties as an FA Delegated Authority on my behalf.
2. Continue to provide CAFGS SA and advice to VCDSO and CDSO.
3. CAF lead for the planning, synchronization, implementation and management of CAFGS initiatives.
4. CAF lead for CAFGS representation as part of the Independent Review of the NDA.
5. Establish CAFGS Initiatives WG(s).
6. Resolve FA backlog by not less than 40% (278 files) in the next 12-months.
7. Continue to provide CFGA support to L1/L2 HQs WRT grievance portfolio.
8. Strengthen lines of communication (LoC) with L1 principles as well as N1/G1/A1/J1 staff.
9. Initiate CFGA succession planning and surge capability planning.
10. Conduct appropriate performance measurement, evaluation and modification activities.
11. Capture any new resource requirements and include in supplemental submissions.
L1s.
1. Reduce outstanding IA grievance backlogs by 40% total (262 files) over the next 12-months.
2. Achieve and sustain an IA compliance rate of at least 80%.
3. Provide leadership to subordinate formations WRT grievance prioritization and resolution.
4. N1/G1/A1/J1 inputs to DCFGA every 6-months regarding PER FA Delegation.
CMP.
1. Execution of the enhanced CMP Grievance Admin and Coord (Griev A&C) cell pilot over the next 12 months IAW ref F.
2. Resolve CMP IA backlog by no less than 50% (203 files) over the next 12-months.
3. Provide supporting fires from the DARC to DCFGA in the planning and implementation of CAFGS initiatives linked to an “off-ramp” for policy-centric files and leadership from DGMC for the development of a PER contestation process outside of the grievance system.
JAG.
1. Continued legal support to the FA and IAs in grievance determination.
2. Provide legal representation on CAFGS Initiative WG(s) to provide creative options to support initiative implementation while ensuring they respect legislation and legal frameworks.

Coordinating Instructions

30. Key Timings:

1 December 2020 – CFGA backlog Tiger Team established and expedited file process developed for FA backlog ready for implementation NLT.
15 January 2021 – FA and IA backlog resolution work to commence NLT.
20 March 2021 – Key initiatives working groups to be established by initiative lead agencies.
May 2021 – BB to VCDS re: CAFGS initiatives progress.
June 2021 – BB to myself re: CAFGS initiatives prior to the Annual Posting Season (APS).
June 2022 – end-state achieved.

31. Commander’s Critical Information Requirements (CCIRs). The CCIRs listed below apply to this review through to APS 2022:

Unforeseen events or newly discovered challenges that may prevent DCFGA from implementing desired CAFGS initiatives.
Major concerns with the roll-out of CAFGS initiatives that may need to be addressed with external partners by the VCDS or myself.

32. Reporting.

DCFGA will report to the CDS and VCDS as required.
The CAFGS WG(s) leads will be accountable to DCFGA.
The CFGA Tiger Team will report to the Manager Compensation and Benefits Group (MCBG) and will be accountable to DCFGA.

33. Communications Plan. As the initiatives at paragraphs 21 through 28 are developed and ready for implementation, a supporting communications plan will be required. DGICCM’s SSO PTC to support DCFGA in this regard.

34. IA Compliance Rate Calculation Methodology Amendment. As per Annex A. With a view to presenting IA compliance realities in the most accurate manner possible, the calculation methodology will change effective directive date of issue. New cases that are open cannot be considered as respecting “DAOD Compliance” until they have actually been closed because one of the principles of addressing grievances is based on date received at the IA. Thus the first column will no longer be part of the equation. Mathematically, the “Over 4-months” files will not be compliant, whether open or closed, and will form the basis of compliance calculations moving forward. While compliance rates will drop initially as a result, they will more accurately depict reality. A calculation supplemental, to include updated compliance rates by L1, is also included at Annex A.

Service Support

35. Resourcing. As previously stated at paragraph 13(b), no new or additional resources are allocated for the execution of actions indicated in this order, as they are already part of existing mandates.

Command and Signals

36.Supported Organization. VCDS Gp // DGICCM.

37.Supporting Organizations. All L1s.

38. Direct Liaison Authority. DCFGA has DirLAuth with CMP, JAG and L1 N1/G1/A1/J1 staff.

39. Point of Contact (POC). Colonel Krista Bouckaert, DCFGA, 613-716-6277.

W.D. Eyre, Lieutenant-General,
Acting Chief of the Defence Staff

Distribution List

Action

VCDS
Comd RCN
Comd CA
Comd RCAF
Comd CANSOFCOM
Comd MILPERSCOM
Comd CJOC
Comd CFINTCOM
JAG
SJS DOS

Information

ADM (PA)
ADM (S&T)
ADM (IM)
ADM (RS)
ADM (DIA)
ADM (Mat)
ADM (Pol)
ADM (HR-Civ)
ADM(Fin)
ADM(IE)
DND/CF LA

Annex A To CDS Directive

Initial Authority (IA) Compliance Calculation Amendment

The new compliance rate calculation is as follows:
- # files CLOSED w/in 4-months
- (TOTAL files - OPEN w/in 4-months)
Updated L1 IA compliance rates for February 2021 are as follows:

CAF ICRTS Grievance Portfolio (1 February)

Active files: 1350
Grievances at FA: 696
Grievances at IA: 654

Level I	0 – 4 Months		4+ Months		Total	DAOD Compliance
-	Open	Closed	Open	Closed	-	-
ADM(FIN)	0	0	2	0	2	0%
ADM(IE)	0	1	7	3	11	9%
ADM(IM)	1	1	7	1	10	11%
ADM(MAT)	1	0	7	1	9	0%
ADM(PA)	1	0	0	1	2	0%
ADM(S&T)	0	0	0	0	0	100%
ADM(POL)	0	0	0	0	0	100%
ADM(HR-CIV)	0	0	0	0	0	100%
ADM(RS)	0	0	0	0	0	100%
ADM(DIA)	0	0	0	0	0	100%
CFINTCOM	1	0	07	4	12	0%
CJOC	11	13	19	34	77	20%
CANSOFCOM	0	1	2	2	5	20%
JAG	0	0	1	1	2	0%
MILPERSCOM	146	99	259	305	809	15%
RCAF	22	14	29	23	88	21%
RCN	16	12	15	30	73	21%
CA	44	46	26	37	153	42%
SJS	1	0	1	1	3	0%
VCDS	13	9	15	38	75	15%
Total IA	257	196	397	481	1331	18%

Page details

Date modified:: 2021-06-28

Language selection

Search