# 2015-266 - Canadian Forces Performance Appraisal System (CFPAS), Harassment, Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–12–11

The grievor challenged his Personnel Evaluation Report (PER) indicating that it was not reflective of his performance and potential and therefore did not rank him appropriately among his peers. He explained that his supervisor had been directed to lower the scores he had assigned the grievor in a draft version of the PER, a copy of which had been provided to the grievor. He asserted that the PER was a marked departure from his previous evaluations and alleged that it was a veiled attempt by his branch to bar him from being promoted, and to engineer his removal from future Selection Board considerations.

The grievor's chain of command confirmed that the unit Merit Board assigned a maximum score for the grievor's performance and potential and ranked him in comparison with his peers. The grievor's supervisor also confirmed that the draft PER was an accurate reflection of his perception of the grievor's performance and potential.

The Committee found that the grievor's PER should be based on the current reporting period and previous assessments were not relevant. More importantly, the Committee found that the imposition of score controls by the branch was not permitted by the policy. Therefore the Committee recommended that a replacement PER, based on the grievor's performance and potential as observed during the reporting period, be completed.

Finally, with regards to grievor's allegation of the intent of the chain of command to engineer his removal from future Selection Board considerations, the Committee found that the allegations, taken at face value, met the definition of harassment (abuse of authority) and therefore, the Committee recommended that an investigation be conducted.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation, and he provided the grievor with a replacement PER that reflects the authenticated draft PER originally prepared by the grievor's former supervisor. The CDS also reminded the branch in question that any attempt at quality control must not result in scores dictated to supervisors. The CDS observed that this situation is not unique with the branch: there is plenty of evidence from the analysis of PER grievances at the FA level that the maladministration of the CFPAS policy occurs across the CAF. That is one of the reasons why the CAF are working hard to field a new CFPAS. The CDS noted that the unfortunate reality is that many formation commanders use different criteria than those listed in section 5 to establish the section 6 ranking. The CDS did not agree with the Committee's recommendation that a Harassment Investigation was required in this case: he was comfortable that had the grievor felt he was being harassed, he would have decided on a different course of action.