# 2013-120 - Administrative Action, Cease-Training, Procedural Fairness, Progress Review Board (PRB), Recorded...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–04–11

Following an accusation of plagiarism in an assignment that the grievor had prepared in partnership with a classmate, a Progress Review Board (PRB) was held and the decision made to remove the grievor from training and issue him a recorded warning. The grievor also received a second recorded warning after he applied for alternate conflict resolution, alleging that he was the victim of harassment by a member of the chain of command.

The grievor submitted a grievance, alleging that he had been given administrative penalties more severe than his colleague and that there had been a breach of procedural fairness during the PRB. He requested that the remedial measures be withdrawn and that he be allowed to complete the course toward his qualification.

The Initial Authority denied the grievance, indicating that the grievor had admitted to plagiarism and that the PRB had proceeded in accordance with directives. Furthermore, the Initial Authority was of the opinion that both recorded warnings were deserved.

First, the Committee noted that the recorded warning given the grievor for having applied for alternate conflict resolution arose from the actions of a member of the chain of command that met the definition of harassment. Noting that a meeting between the grievor and the Respondent had resulted in a mutual understanding, the Committee concluded that this recorded warning was not reasonable.

The Committee went on to note that there had been a breach of procedural fairness during the PRB. New evidence had been brought before the PRB members without the grievor's knowledge, and the PRB discussions appeared tainted by a lack of impartiality on the part of some Board members. The Committee concluded that the breaches of procedural fairness were sufficiently severe to set aside the PRB's decision and conduct another review.

The Committee compared the Grievor's situation with that of his work colleague and determined that no significant difference existed that could justify different treatment. The Committee thus concluded that the grievor should have been given the same remedial measure as his partner.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) grant the grievance.

The Committee recommended that the CDS order that the two recorded warnings be rescinded and removed from the grievor's personnel file.

The Committee recommended that the CDS order that the grievor be given the same remedial measure as his partner, that is, an initial counselling for plagiarism.

The Committee recommended that the CDS order that the Grievor's file be evaluated to determine and do what must be done to restore the grievor's career to a situation equivalent to where it would have been if such actions had not been taken against him.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–08–25

The FA agrees with the Committee's findings and recommendation to uphold the grievance. Like the Committee, the FA found that the 2 recorded warnings issued to the grievor were excessive and accepted the Committee's recommendation to remove them from his file. The FA ordered that various options be explored so as to allow the grievor to complete the course in question as expeditiously as possible.