# 2011-081 Careers, Initial Counselling (IC), Personnel Development Review, Recorded Warning

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–09–27

The grievor contested the issuance of a recorded warning (RW) and a Performance Assessment Letter (the “Letter”), which he argued were not warranted. The grievor had received a verbal warning from his chain of command (CoC) regarding his lack of dedication (frequent absences), and subsequently received a RW for a lack of dedication and poor leadership. The grievor was returned to his home unit (RTU) prior to the completion of his Class B duties and the Letter was sent to his unit explaining why the grievor had been RTU’d.

The grievor argued that: he had not been previously warned about the deficiency; he had not received an initial counselling (IC) prior to the issuance of the RW; and he was not given the opportunity to correct his shortcomings.

The initial authority (IA) partially upheld the grievance. He found that the grievor was not sufficiently dedicated to his duties and that his leadership skills were not at the standard expected of someone in his position; however, he could not conclude that the grievor had been provided with sufficient feedback to correct his performance deficiency before it escalated to the point of requiring a remedial measure. The IA directed that the RW be replaced with two separate ICs; one to deal with leadership and the other to address the lack of dedication. Finally, the IA directed that the Letter be revised to reflect his decision.

An analyst with the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority prepared a synopsis on the file and concluded that the ICs were appropriate measures given the grievor’s performance and conduct.

Regarding the issuance of the RW, the Board found that the grievor ought to have received an IC before being issued with a RW. The Board also found that the grievor was not given time to correct his shortcomings prior to the issuance of the RW, nor did he receive any time to correct the deficiencies noted in the RW prior to his RTU. Further, the Board noted that the RW did not provide sufficient detail to describe the deficiency. As a result of these findings, the Board concluded that the RW was not warranted.

The Board then considered the issuance of the two ICs as directed by the IA. The Board found that the IC referring to the grievor’s leadership skills should be removed from the grievor’s file because he had never been formally counselled by his CoC regarding this deficiency, nor had he been mentored in terms of his leadership skills as he had been led to expect. The Board found that the IC addressing the lack of dedication was justified because the grievor had been previously warned about this issue. Finally, the Board found that the Letter should be amended to reflect the removal of the IC related to leadership.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff partially uphold the grievance such that the two ICs be removed from the grievor’s personnel file to be replaced by one IC for conduct related solely to the grievor’s lack of dedication. The Board also recommended the amendment of the Letter to reflect only the grievor’s deficiency related to lack of dedication.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2011–12–15

The FA agreed in part with the Board's recommendation to partially uphold the grievance. The FA was of the opinion that, despite not receiving sufficient feedback on the reported shortcomings, the grievor is a CF member since 2001 and was exposed to many examples of leadership in the course of his career; therefore, his IC for performance was based on sufficient anecdotal evidence on the file to support the IA's contention. The FA did not agree with the Board's recommendation that the IC for conduct be amended to address the lack of dedication only. On the contrary, the FA found that the IC insufficiently addresses the grievor's deficiency, and directed that a sentence be added to reflect the poor actions taken by the grievor. Following what was decided above, the FA did not agree with the Board's recommendation that the performance assessment letter be amended.