# 2014-141 - Appropriate Remedy, Progress Review Board (PRB), Training Failure

Appropriate Remedy, Progress Review Board (PRB), Training Failure

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–12–22

The grievor submitted that both her Aerodrome Controller (AEC) training program and progress review process were flawed. She argued that during training, she was not provided with feedback nor formally notified that her progress was unsatisfactory and could generate consequences. The grievor maintained that her Chain of Command (CoC) did nothing to assist in correcting her deficiency and that her first Progress Review Board (PRB) failed to recommend any remedial action to address her unsatisfactory performance. The grievor contended that if she had been made aware of the extent of her deficiencies and been given the means, opportunity and time to correct her shortcomings, a PRB might never have been necessary. As redress, the grievor requested an acknowledgement that her training program and progress reviews, including the PRBs, were not carried out in accordance with policy. In addition, she requested that she be reassigned to a suitable officer occupation such as Training Development Officer (TDO), Intelligence Officer (Int O) or Public Affairs Officer (PAFFO).

The Initial Authority (IA) determined that the grievor had not been provided with formal feedback for unsatisfactory performance as required, her deficiencies had not been identified or corrected in accordance with policy and her unsatisfactory performance had never been addressed prior to her first PRB. Thus, the IA acknowledged that the grievor's training and progress reviews had not been conducted in accordance with the standards and practice set out in 1 Canadian Air Division Orders, Volume 5, 5-035. In addition, the IA found that the direction given in the PRB convening letter had not been followed and that remedial actions had not been clearly identified in the PRB recommendations nor had the grievor's unsatisfactory progress been addressed in accordance with policy. As redress, the IA offered the grievor the opportunity to return to AEC training.

While the grievor was generally satisfied with the IA decision, she still sought to be reassigned to a different military occupation as she no longer felt comfortable returning to the AEC profession nor did she believe that she would been given a fair chance to succeed.

The Committee had to determine whether the grievor's training and progress reviews were conducted in accordance with applicable policy and if not, whether the grievor should be re-coursed or allowed, as requested, to transfer into a new occupation.

The Committee found that the IA had conducted a very thorough and exhaustive analysis of the grievance, recognizing that the grievor had been prejudiced and granting redress in the form of a re-course.

The Committee was of the opinion that allowing the grievor another opportunity to be successful as an AEC was the most appropriate and best suited remedy in the circumstances. The Committee found no evidence on file to support the grievor's apprehension that she would not receive a fair training opportunity or an objective assessment and thus, no reason to support her request for an occupational transfer.

The Committee recommended that the grievor be re-offered, for a limited period of time, the opportunity to re-attempt her Unit Aerodrome Control course.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–05–21

While the FA agreed with the Committee's findings on the substantive matter in the grievance, it did not agree with the Committee's recommendation. The FA acknowledged the grievor's reluctance to return to the AEC occupation. Considering the passage of time, the FA considered that this option would neither meet the grievor's personal interest nor the long term interests of the institution. The FA found that at the time of the grievor's compulsory occupation transfer - untrained (COT(U)), there were other available options that were not fully explored and that her file was not fully assessed against the occupations available for reassignment. Consequently, the FA agreed to grant the grievor a facilitated VOT process and directed CMP to administer this process in priority.

Page details

Date modified: