# 2018-093 Careers, Initial Counselling, Remedial Measures

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-12-23

The grievor received an Initial Counselling (IC) for performance deficiency while on her basic officer occupational training course for failing to display professional and officer-like qualities. The grievor contended that she was never informed of the deficiency before the IC was issued, that the IC was improperly and unfairly administered, and that it was unclear as to what the exact deficiency was.

The school Commandant (Cmdt), acting as the Initial Authority (IA), ordered a Summary Investigation (SI) to examine the circumstances of the issuance of the IC. Based on the results of the SI, the IA found that the grievor displayed deficiencies in respecting rank structure that required corrective actions. The IA also determined that the IC should have been deemed a conduct deficiency rather than a performance deficiency and ordered that the IC be revised and re-issued.

The Committee first observed that the Cmdt should not have acted as the IA since file evidence indicated that he had agreed with the IC being issued. The Committee further noted that the SI had issues with procedural fairness. In particular, the limited input from key individuals and the lack of a disclosure and representation process for the grievor. However, the Committee noted that the grievor has since had the opportunity to provide her representation to both the Committee and to the Final Authority (FA).

Although the Committee concluded that the grievor's conduct warranted a remedial measure, the Committee found the IC was poorly written, vague and lacked specific examples of the grievor's deficient conduct. The Committee recommended that the IC be revised to provide specific examples of the grievor's deficiency, and that no further redress be granted.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as FA, disagreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. He first noted breach of procedural fairness, as the grievor was not provided with opportunity to make comments and the IA was not impartial. The FA said he agreed "in principle" with the Committee's recommendation that the IC be revised but finds that "it is not judicious to do so". The FA explained that it is difficult for him to identify specific times and locations of when the grievor's shortcomings occurred. He also noted that she successfully completed the monitoring period and finds that the IC would serve no purpose.