# 2014-185 - Cease-Training, Training Review Board

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–02–27

The grievor had three negative assessments during her occupation training which led to the establishment of a Training Review Board (TRB). The TRB recommended that the grievor cease training because there were several outstanding performance objectives (PO) with only a few days remaining in the course.

The grievor considered the outcome of the TRB to be unjust, unfair and based on false information. She argued that there were just a few outstanding POs that could have been completed in the time remaining in the course. She also believed that the first negative assessment she received was invalid and she should not, therefore, have been subject to the TRB in the first place. The grievor argued that she was not provided with procedural fairness during the TRB and that inappropriate comments in regard to her health were made and considered in the decision.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Commanding Officer (CO) of the school (a different person than the CO who directed the grievor's cease training), denied the grievance. The IA found that the first negative assessment was valid, that the actual number of outstanding POs was ultimately a minor consideration and that there was inadequate time and resources for the grievor to complete the training.

The Committee had to determine whether the grievor's TRB was conducted in accordance with policy and whether the subsequent decision to cease her training was justified.

The Committee found that the first negative assessment was valid and, therefore, also found that convening a TRB was justified as three negative assessments had been issued to the grievor.

The Committee found that the TRB did not have the verified correct information to review regarding the status of the grievor's training. The Committee was not convinced that the outcome of the TRB process would have been the same if the TRB had the verified and correct number of POs before it. The Committee also found that the grievor was not provided procedural fairness as she was not given a reasonable opportunity to make her representation at the TRB because of what appears to have been aggressive and intimidating questioning. The Committee found that the TRB process was flawed and must be set aside as well as the cease training decision.

The Committee agreed that comments in the TRB about the grievor's state of health were inappropriate and should be deleted from the records. The Committee also found that the grievor could not be promoted because she had not completed the prerequisite training.

The Committee recommended that the TRB and the resulting cease training decision be set aside and all reference to them be removed from the grievor's files.

If the Final Authority maintains the TRB results, the Committee recommended that all reference to the grievor's state of health be removed.

The Committee recommended that the grievor be offered an opportunity to retake the occupational training. Should the grievor reject this offer, the Committee recommended that the grievor be referred to a Personnel Selection Officer to determine a suitable occupation; upon which result, the grievor should be occupationally transferred.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–04–22

The FA partially agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation to uphold the grievance. The FA did not agree with the Committee's finding that the TRB rendered a decision based on incomplete information; the TRB was conducted in accordance with the policies that were in place at the time. Therefore, the FA did not agree with the Committee's recommendation that the TRB and the resulting cease training decision be set aside, but agreed with the alternative recommendation that all reference to the grievor's state of health be removed. Since the grievor's MEL were now in breach of U of S, the option that she be recoursed was no longer an option.