# 2014-045 - Harassment, Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)

Harassment, Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–05–30

The grievor, who was on the Basic Training List at the time and ineligible to receive an annual Personnel Evaluation Report, asked his supervisor for a letter of performance. The grievor objected to his superior's statement that if he wrote such a letter that it would of necessity contain negative comments regarding the grievor's conduct, which might detract from his accomplishments. The grievor subsequently filed a grievance and a harassment complaint. Dissatisfied with the treatment of his complaint, he submitted a second grievance, which was incorporated into the case.

The initial authority (IA) concluded that the superior acted within his responsibilities by warning the grievor about the contents of the requested letter. The IA also noted that the grievor's superior had no obligation to provide him with such a letter, since the grievor was on the Basic Training List. Since it was not part of his mandate, the IA did not review the grievor's allegations regarding the management of the harassment complaint.

The Committee had to determine whether the grievor should have received a formal evaluation of his performance and whether the decision made by the Responsible Officer to the effect that the grievor's harassment allegations did not constitute harassment was reasonable.

On the issue of feedback, the Committee noted that the policies did not stipulate that a member on the Basic Training List should receive an annual Personnel Evaluation Report. However, the Committee did determine that the grievor's request for formal feedback was reasonable since although he had been transferred to the Basic Training List the Canadian Armed Forces fully employed him as a supervisor and he had to work within a framework of expectations and objectives.

On the issue of harassment, the Committee determined that the conclusion of the Responsible Officer, to the effect that the grievor's allegations failed to meet the definition of harassment, were reasonable and justified. Accordingly, the Committee supported the decision of the Responsible Officer to close the case.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff partially uphold the grievance and order the chain of command to produce an evaluation of the grievor's performance in a format to be determined by the concerned authorities.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–03–24

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be partially upheld.

Page details

Date modified: