# 2012-170 Careers, Initial Counselling (IC), Remedial Measures

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–03–21

The grievor was on a period of Class B service and received an initial counselling for being an administrative burden based on a number of incidents. It was the grievor's view that she should not have received the remedial measure and that she was not provided the minimum monitoring period set out in DAOD 5019-4, Remedial Measures, since her Class B service ended five days short of the minimum three-month monitoring period. The issue before the Board was whether the decision to place the grievor on initial counseling was reasonable and justified in the circumstances and whether the monitoring period was in accordance with the DAOD.

The Initial Authority reviewed each of the incidents. He found that all but one of the incidents justified the initial counseling. With regard to that one incident, he directed that it be removed from the initial counseling, but denied the grievance.

The Board examined the specific situation of the grievor and conducted its own review of the incidents which led to the initial counseling. With respect to one of the incidents, the Board noted that the grievor's comments could be construed as being insubordinate; based on this incident alone, the Board found that an initial counseling was appropriate. Looking at all of the incidents holistically, it was the Board's view that the additional time and attention required by the grievor's chain of command did amount to an administrative burden; issuing the initial counseling was reasonable and justified in the circumstances. It was also the Board's view that considerable deference must be given to those individuals on scene who made the decision to impose the remedial measure. In regard to the monitoring period, the Board found that the grievor was given ample and reasonable time to correct her deficiencies and the absence of five days out of three month period did not invalidate the initial counselling.

The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff that he deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–12–18

The FA agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be denied. While the Committee found that after the review of two issues, these were sufficient to justify the grievor's initial counselling, the FA considered each of the 12 issues raised in the grievance to find that indeed the imposition of such administrative measure was warranted. However, the FA found that the term ''administrative burden'' in the remedial measure form was vague, therefore, directed that the IC be removed from the grievor's personnel record and replaced with an IC that more accurately reflects her conduct deficiency.