# 2020-158 Careers, Recorded warning, Remedial measures

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-05-28

The grievor challenged a recorded warning (RW) issued to him for a performance deficiency, specifically for having failed to organize his work. The grievor argued that any perceived shortcomings were the result of an untenable workload that was caused by several factors:

• his absence from the unit for the majority of the year
• an extreme backlog of work upon his return
• the requirement to cover his supervisor's duties for an extended period of time
• his Chain of Command tasking him to assist with additional urgent duties within the unit  

The Initial Authority (IA) determined that while the remedial measure (RM) issued to the grievor was reasonable and necessary, a lesser RM would have achieved the same result. Accordingly, the IA directed that the RW be removed and replaced with an Initial Counselling. 

After examining the RW, the Committee found that it was not administered in accordance with Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5019-4, Remedial Measures. The Committee also found that the RW did not reflect a complete and unbiased picture of the state of the grievor's unit, that the evidence did not support the assertions set out in the RM and that it did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the grievor's performance was deficient. Consequently, the Committee found that the RW was not justified. 

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority quash the RW and remove all references to it from the grievor's personnel records.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as the FA, agreed with the Committee's finding that the grievor had been aggrieved and with its recommendation to remove the RW from the grievor's personnel file. The FA found that the grievor had been placed in exceptional circumstances, in that he had been faced with a large backlog of work and had been tasked to perform the duties of a more senior position in addition to the duties of his own position. The FA found that it was unreasonable for the grievor's chain of command to point out deficiencies in the grievor's performance of his primary duties while urgently tasking him to perform the duties of another position. In the FA's view, the evidence did not establish a performance deficiency; rather, it demonstrated that the grievor had done the best he could under difficult circumstances. The FA concluded that the RW was not justified and directed that it, and all references to it, be removed from the grievor's records.