# 2019-032 Careers, Recorded warning, Remedial measures

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-12-23

The grievor challenged a recorded warning (RW) he was issued for an identified performance deficiency, arguing that the facts did not support the statement of deficiency. As redress, the grievor asked for the removal of the RW from his records.

The Initial Authority found that an Initial Counselling (IC) was a more appropriate remedial measure and ordered that the RW be replaced by an IC.

The Committee examined the circumstances giving rise to the RW and found that the grievor's performance merited corrective action of some kind. However, it found no evidence that the deficiency was part of a pattern of poor performance nor egregious enough to warrant a formal remedial measure. The Committee opined that the grievor's single occasion of deficient performance could be adequately addressed through informal counselling recorded in a Personnel Development Report (PDR).

The Committee also observed that the grievor's chain of command, who described the RW and IC as “punishment,” misunderstood the nature of remedial measures. Citing Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5019-4, Remedial Measures, the Committee suggested that the Final Authority (FA) remind the grievor's chain of command that remedial measures are not punitive, but administrative actions designed to assist Canadian Armed Forces members in overcoming identified deficiencies.

The Committee recommended that the FA quash the IC and remove all references to it from the grievor's personnel records. The Committee also recommended that the FA direct the grievor's chain of command to draft a PDR addressing the grievor’s performance deficiency and provide appropriate feedback to assist him in overcoming it.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DCFGA), acting as the FA, agreed with the Committee that the recorded warning should be removed form the grievor's file, but he does not agree with the recommendation that the grievor be given a PDR part 5 instead. Given the passage of time, and the fact that a PDR remains in the member's file for a limited time, the DCFGA determines that the issuance of such a measure is not necessary.