# 2019-172 Careers, Personnel Evaluation Report

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-01-07

The grievor sought reassessment of a previous Personnel Evaluation Report (PER), arguing that there was a concerted effort by his Chain of Command (CoC) to diminish his contributions. The grievor also complained that the grievance process took too long and that his harassment complaint went largely ignored by his CoC for two years.

The unit Commanding Officer, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), proposed several amendments to the PER in line with the grievor's request, but determined that the grievor had not provided clear evidence to support higher ratings for all requested amendments.

The Committee noted several serious irregularities in the unit's handling of the grievance and found that the CoC had demonstrated a lack of regard towards the grievor. The Committee also noted that there was very little overlap in issues between the harassment complaint and his PER grievance, finding that the grievance could have proceeded without waiting for the resolution of the harassment complaint. The Committee found that the absence of direct subordinates did not prevent scoring the grievor for supervising and developing subordinates, given that the grievor provided evidence to substantiate a score in those categories. The Committee also found that the IA's proposed adjustments in the other PER scoring categories were reasonable and noted that the grievor did not consider them unfair. Finally, the Committee concluded that the grievor continued to be mistreated by his CoC even after the harassment investigation finding that the grievor had been harassed. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) take steps to halt this mistreatment and consider granting an ex gratia payment to address the continued harm to the grievor.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority partially agreed with the Committee's recommendations to issue a new PER and award an ex Gratia payment to the grievor. After further investigation by the Canadian Forces Grievance Authority on the handling of a harassment complaint submitted by the grievor, the director found that he was unable to benefit from a complete investigation at the time. Given that the harassment complaint was still in process, the director also found that he was unable to further comment on the workplace at the grievor's unit at the time. He found that the complaint was not relevant to the determination of the grievance. Regarding the disputed PER, the director agreed with the Committee and directed that it be changed. The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority found that he was unable to award an ex Gratia payment because he granted the grievor's request to issue a modified PER. He stated that he could only offer such payment when Treasury Board's criteria that there be no other statutory, regulatory or policy vehicle available for a remedy.