# 2023-045 Careers, Administrative Action, Reprisals

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-06-04

The grievor disputed the decision to reassign her secondary duty seemingly in response to her submission of a report of wrongdoing and a harassment complaint, contending that it was a form of reprisal under article 19.15 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Armed Forces (QR&O). The grievor also contended that she was never informed of who made the decision or why her secondary duty was removed. As redress, the grievor requested an acknowledgement of the inappropriate action, compulsory training, and the creation of related orders and directives within the unit in question. 

The Initial Authority (IA) partially granted redress. The IA found that the grievor's concerns about the management of resources were valid, thus ordered mandatory training. However, the IA found that the removal of the grievor's secondary duty was not an act of reprisal pursuant to article 19.15 of the QR&O. 

The Committee found that the reassignment of the grievor's secondary duty was, in part, to address concerns raised about a lack of understanding of authorities and procedures. The Committee also found that the grievor did not suffer negative consequences from the removal of her secondary duty. As such, the Committee found that it did not constitute reprisal pursuant to article 19.15 of the QR&O, thus the grievor was not aggrieved. The Committee noted that as part of good leadership, the grievor should have been informed of the reasons for the decision to reassign her secondary duty, which could have avoided the perception of reprisal. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford redress.