# 2019-073 Careers, Procedural fairness

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-12-24

The grievor contested the refusal by Director General Integrated Conflict and Complaint Management (DGICCM) personnel to intervene in the determination of an appropriate Initial Authority (IA) for the review of four grievances he had filed. The grievor claimed that his commander had a conflict of interest, but had nevertheless elected to act as IA. The grievor contested the conclusion by DGICCM personnel that, under the applicable policies, it does not have the authority to intervene when a commander determines that they can act as IA. The grievor requested that his four grievances be reassigned to a superior IA. He also requested that an external agency be created to replace the DGICCM in its responsibilities with respect to grievances to ensure that members' rights are upheld by a neutral and impartial organization.

The Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS) noted that the grievor's four grievances had since been reassigned to a superior IA, with no comment on the question of conflict of interest. The VCDS considered this aspect of the grievance resolved. Following an explanation of the role and operations of the DGICCM, the VCDS concluded that there was no need to create an external agency and did not grant redress.

The Committee did not review the decision to reassign the four grievances to a superior IA, as the decision was in the grievor's interest. The Committee noted that the applicable provisions of Chapter 7 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O) set out that a commander must first determine whether they can act as IA. Only if a commander determines that they cannot act as IA is a grievance sent to the DGICCM for determination of an appropriate IA. The QR&O also state that a commander must send a grievance to the superior officer who is their immediate supervisor if the grievance relates to a decision, act or omission on their part. The Committee concluded that DGICCM personnel provided an accurate response.

The Committee noted that Canadian courts have validated the foundation of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) grievance system. Providing a comparison between the CAF grievance system and that of the federal public service, the Committee explained its role as an external and independent entity. Finally, the Committee stated that it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament to deal with the legislative provisions of the CAF grievance system.

Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not grant any additional redress.

FA decision summary

The Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, as the FA, agreed with the Committee's recommendation to reject the grievance. The FA indicated that the grievor's commanding officer had erred in deciding to act as IA given his involvement in decisions that were the subject of the grievances. The FA nevertheless noted that the grievances had since been forwarded to another impartial IA who had authority to act. The FA thus indicated it was satisfied that the principles of procedural fairness had been adhered to and that the grievor's grievances had received an impartial review at the first level in the military grievance process.