# 2024-300 Harassment, Remedial Measures

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-04-22

The grievor, a Primary Reservist, objected to being placed on Recorded Warning (RW) for failing to follow administrative policy; specifically, Payment in Lieu of Annual Leave, Reserve Employment policy and Personnel Readiness Verification (PRV) policy. He argued that he had acted in the best interest of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) by working pro-bono, seeking full-time employment and asking for payment in lieu of leave with his supervisor's full knowledge. He further argued that the Canadian Army (CA) had no authority to place him on RW as he was employed by another Level 1 (L1) organization at the time the RW was issued. As redress, the grievor sought to have the RW rescinded and removed from his personnel records.

The Initial Authority (IA) determined that the grievor was not aggrieved. The IA found that the grievor was part of the CA Primary Reserve List despite working for another L1, which provided the initiating authority the necessary authority to issue an RW. The IA determined that the number and nature of the grievor's administrative shortcomings justified a RW and that an order to reacquaint himself with basic administrative rules was a reasoned course of action toward improving the grievor's conduct. 

The Final Authority (FA) adopted the IA's decision as his own and denied the grievor redress with no further explanation. Following an application for Judicial Review, the Federal Court ordered that the FA's decision be quashed for failing to follow procedure, and the grievance remitted back to the CAF for referral to the Committee within 30 days.

The Committee reviewed the administrative procedures that the grievor had allegedly failed to follow. The Committee determined that the grievor's previous Commanding Officer had properly requested authority for payment in lieu of leave in accordance with the Canadian Forces Leave Policy, but that the grievor's new employer had held the grievor responsible for an error made by the staff processing the request. Though the grievor had contributed to confusion by not clearly communicating with all parties, the Committee found that he was not responsible for the primary issues arising out of his employment and surrounding the administration of his outstanding leave. However, the Committee did find the grievor responsible for not completing his PRV paperwork in a timely manner. Notwithstanding, the Committee found there was no indication that the grievor had demonstrated a conduct deficiency in the past and there was no evidence that the grievor had been counselled by his supervisor before receiving the RW. As such, the Committee recommended the FA afford the grievor redress by quashing the RW.