# 2021-099 Careers, Discrimination, Initial Counselling, Remedial Measures
Discrimination, Initial Counselling (IC), Remedial Measures
F&R Date: 2021-11-24
The grievor challenged the imposition of initial counselling (IC) for a performance deficiency and asked that it be expunged from his record. The grievor claimed that the performance problem concerned a task that was not among the terms and conditions of his position. He felt that the remedial measure was imposed because his supervisor had subjected him to discriminatory behaviour and harassment.
The Initial Authority (IA) determined that the IC was warranted, namely because the task that his supervisor had assigned to him was reasonable and he was obliged to obey and support a legal authority. The IA also added that the grievor's allegation of discrimination and harassment could not be substantiated because no formal complaint had been filed.
Although the Committee attempted on several occasions to obtain relevant information in support of his claims, the grievor did not provide elements that were essential to the review of his case. Accordingly, the review of the grievance was limited largely to information in the original file that the Committee received and to the central issue of the grievance, that is, the imposition of the IC.
The Committee determined that the appropriate initiating authority had not issued the IC. However, the Committee also determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the grievor had demonstrated a performance deficiency over several months. The Committee determined that a remedial measure was warranted and that an IC was reasonable under the circumstances.
The Committee recommended the Final Authority order that an appropriate initiating authority issue a new IC and that a note be added to the grievor's employee record to reflect that the monitoring period had ended.
Report a problem or mistake on this page
- Date modified: