# 2014-013 - Counselling and Probation (C&P), Remedial Measures
F&R Date: 2014–09–26
The grievor was tasked as an instructor on a course at a Training Centre (TC) during which a 100% student failure rate occurred. An investigation ensued and it was determined that the grievor had displayed unprofessional behaviour and incompetence as an instructor. The grievor was returned to his unit (RTU) as the TC had lost confidence in his ability to effectively instruct. The RTU letter sent to the grievor's Commanding Officer (CO) commented that given the grievor's previous counselling, proper screening conducted prior to the tasking could have helped determine his suitability before being exposed to students.
Approximately six months after his RTU, the grievor's CO issued him a Counselling and Probation (C&P) for his unacceptable behaviour while teaching the course and for the 100% student failure rate. The grievor's CO also wrote to the Formation Commander to oppose against the grievor's transfer to the Supplementary Reserve upon release as justified by the high number of remedial measures (RM) that he received throughout his career.
The grievor opposed the C&P, because in his view, the students used a ‘cheat sheet' on the portion of the course he instructed which resulted in a 100% failure rate. He requested that the RM be removed from his files and that the information related to previous RM be removed from the RTU letter because, in his view, referring to previous remedial measures had no relation to his instructional abilities or the incident at hand.
The Initial Authority (IA) partially granted the grievance by directing that the portion of the C&P which referred to the 100% failure rate be removed. However, the IA found that the C&P was warranted based on the investigation and denied the request to remove it from the grievor's files. The IA denied the grievor's request that the RTU letter be changed.
The Committee determined that the grievor's RTU was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances based on the investigation process, which included the review of written statements from most of the students, and an interview from the grievor. The Committee found that the investigation was conducted fairly, within a reasonable time and in an unbiased manner.
After reviewing the prior RMs the grievor received, the Committee found that they had no relevance to the grievor's RTU and should not be mentioned in the RTU letter.
The Committee reviewed the relevant policy, Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 5019-4 on RMs and found that the grievor's RTU did not warrant a C&P. RMs are supposed to be progressive and take into consideration many factors. None of the previous RMs related to the situation the grievor faced as an instructor. The Committee also noted that there was a six-month gap between the incident and the awarding of the RM which lessened its importance. Given that a C&P is a member's last chance to salvage his or her career, the Committee found that, considering all the grievor's circumstances at the time and the reasons for the RTU, a Recorded Warning (RW) with proper monitoring would have been appropriate to address the situation.
The Committee recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff that the C&P be changed to a RW, that the mention of prior RMs in the RTU letter be removed, and that the reference to previous RMs in a letter to the Formation Commander opposing against the grievor's transfer to the Supplementary Reserve be removed.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2015–12–14
The FA partially agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations. The CDS did not agree that the letter from the CO be altered: it was written to explain the CO's reasoning at the time. The CDS agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the C&P be changed to “conduct” rather than “performance.” The CDS also agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the C&P be changed to an RW.
- Date modified: