# 2012-011 Careers, Abuse of Authority, Administrative Action, Counselling and Probation (C&P), Recorded Warning

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–04–12

The grievor challenged the remedial measures taken against him - first Initial Counselling (IC), Recorded Warning (RW) and Counselling and Probation (C and P). He also indicated that he was not satisfied with the results of his Personnel Evaluation Report (PER) and the minor changes made to the report following his grievance to that effect. The grievor asked that all the remedial measures be withdrawn, that the PER be amended, that an administrative investigation be held into what he considered to be abuse of authority on the part of his chain of command, and that his supervisor make a formal apology.

First, according to the Board, the PER was the subject of a separate grievance; therefore, if the grievor was not satisfied with the decision of the Initial Authority, he should have asked that his grievance be sent on to the Final Authority rather than challenging it again through this grievance. In addition, the Board noted that the grievor had since been promoted and that his PER had therefore not seemed to have harmed his career. For these reasons, the Board concluded that it would not address the issue further.

With respect to the administration of remedial measures, the Board was of the opinion that, contrary to the evaluation objectives and criteria set out in the Defence Administrative Orders and Directive (DAOD) 5019-4 - Remedial Measures, the supervisor had not taken account of the grievor’s rank, his military occupation, his experience, or his work-related medical restrictions. After carefully reviewing each remedial measure challenged by the grievor, the Board concluded that, except in the case of the IC, the vigour and speed with which the remedial measures were imposed on the grievor were not in keeping with the objectives and principles underlying the measures.

The Board noted that, in his grievance the grievor criticized the leadership style of two Majors who acted, in turn, as supervisors, and that he considered himself to be the victim of abuse of authority. The Board also noted that, according to DAOD 5012-0 - Harassment Prevention and Resolution, a harassment complaint must be submitted within one year. In the circumstances, because the alleged incidents occurred beyond that timeframe and the grievor has since been transferred to his satisfaction, the Board concluded that it would be inappropriate to require an harassment investigation. The conflict between the grievor and his supervisor no longer exists.

Nevertheless, the Board was of the opinion that the file contained communications that raised some doubt about the quality of leadership of one of the supervisors and left it to the discretion of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) to decide whether or not to take any specific measures in that regard.

As for the grievor’s request for an apology, the Board indicated that it was unable to recommend that a third party be required to make an apology because that could constitute an infringement on freedom of expression.

The Board recommended that the CDS uphold the grievance in part.

The Board recommended that the CDS order that the RW be amended at paragraphs 2 and 5 and order that the C and P and related correspondence be withdrawn from the grievor’s personnel file and disposed of in accordance with the Library and Archives of Canada Act.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–02–13

The CDS is in partial agreement with the conclusions and recommendations of the Board. Like the Board, the CDS felt that the request to amend the grievor's PER was no longer the aim of his grievance and that his IC was warranted. The CDS also ordered the removal of the C&P and the relevant correspondence. Contrary to the Board, however, the CDS concluded that the RW issued the grievor was justified as written and therefore required no changes.