# 2019-187 Careers, Release, Remedial measures

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-08-25

The grievor was issued an initial counselling (IC) and subsequently a recorded warning (RW), for conduct deficiency. He argued that they were not justified and that there was a lack of procedural fairness throughout both of the remedial measure (RM) processes. As redress, he asked that both RM be removed from his personnel records.

The Initial Authority denied the grievances, finding that there was reliable evidence to conclude that the grievor's conduct was unprofessional and unacceptable.

The Committee found reliable evidence to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the grievor did conduct himself in an unprofessional and inappropriate manner. The Committee also found that IC and the RW were justified and administered in accordance with policy. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not afford the grievor redress.

FA decision summary

The Chief of Defence Staff, acting as FA, stated that while the Committee's analysis had been thorough, it did not have access to crucial information, namely a Directorate of Special Examinations and Inquiries (DSEI) report. After the grievor complained in 2016, DSEI investigated and found that the grievor's Chain of Command (CoC) had attempted to dismiss a harassment complaint he submitted and had conducted reprisals and tried to prevent him from submitting further harassment complaints and grievances. As a result, the FA found that the grievor had been aggrieved. He apologized and cancelled the contested IC and RW as well as a personal evaluation report. He noted that DSEI had not commented on the validity of the original harassment complaint but he described the CoC's conduct as harassing. However, the FA found that the grievor's release had been administered in accordance with policy.