# 2012-001 Careers, Personnel Evaluation Report (PER), Procedural Fairness

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–02–20

The grievor submitted a grievance objecting to his 2010/2011 personnel evaluation report (PER) on the grounds that it did not reflect the standing determined in a previous Ranking Board. The grievor argued that the PER indicated a low "Mastered, Outstanding, Immediate" (MOI) with no ranking and should have reflected a very high MOI with an overall ranking of 5th within the Command. The grievor added that the PER was poorly written and was not indicative of his accomplishments.

The grievance was referred to the Board without an initial authority (IA) decision because the IA requested an alternative IA as he felt there might be "a perceived apprehension of bias" on the part of the grievor.

As a preliminary issue, the Board indicated that the correct test regarding bias involves inquiry as to whether a well-informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would have a reasonable apprehension of bias. In the case at hand, the IA simply considered whether the grievor might raise concerns regarding bias rather than a well-informed person. Since the IA did not provide any justification for his determination nor describe any other circumstances that did exist, the Board found that it was not open to the IA to decline to consider the grievance.

Concerning the grievor's ranking, the Board found that the evidence suggested that the grievor was in fact ranked as number six and that the grievor's PER should be amended to reflect this ranking.

The Board noted that while the grievor did not grieve any other specific issues, he did indicate that he felt his PER should have been rated higher, was poorly written and did not reflect any of his accomplishments. The Board limited its comments on these three issues to some general observations. In the matter of being rated higher, the Board noted that the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System does not provide any distinction when it comes to MOI PERs. In the Board's view, the grievor's overall performance was assessed as being "mastered" and any additional individual assessment factors being rated as "mastered" would not change the qualification of his performance.

On the remaining issues that the PER was poorly written and that it did not reflect the grievor's accomplishments, the Board pointed out that the grievor did not provide any evidence in support of his contentions. In the Board's view, while the PER may not have used the wording the grievor preferred, each supervisor and each reviewing officer will write a PER differently and the Board did not note anything of concern in the language used.

The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) that the grievance be upheld.

The Board recommended that the CDS direct that the beginning of Section 6 of the PER be annotated to reflect that the grievor ranked in the top third amongst other personnel of the same rank within the Command.

The Board also recommended to the CDS that he inform the IA of his errors by providing him with a copy of the findings and recommendations.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–06–12

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be upheld. In addition to the redress recommended by the Committee, the CDS directed the conduct of a supplementary board based on the amended PER.