# 2012-079 Careers, Administrative Action, Counselling and Probation (C&P)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–09–10

The grievor was repatriated after he was awarded a counselling and probation (C&P) as a result of incidents that occurred while on deployment. The grievor contended his chain of command (CoC) did not properly administer the C&P. He stated the CoC had an obligation to counsel him on a monthly basis, which did not occur until the fourth month into the C&P period. In his opinion, the CoC did not take the administrative measure seriously and the action, as well as inaction of the CoC were inappropriate. The grievor also indicated the CoC had failed to properly administer a recorded warning the previous year. The grievor added that, in his opinion, the C&P measure was too harsh given the nature of the incidents involved and requested the C&P be considered invalid. In a later submission, the grievor pointed out that the CoC had failed to inform him in writing and to place a written summary on his personnel file once he was deemed to have overcome the identified deficiencies.

The initial authority (IA) stated that the grievor's parent unit appropriately administered the grievor's C&P. The IA pointed out that Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 5019-4 - Remedial Measures, allows the initiating authority to adjust the dates of monitoring in the interests of fairness to the member or for service reasons in cases when the monitoring period cannot begin immediately, as was the grievor's case. The IA denied the grievance.

The Board noted that the C&P described serious conduct and leadership issues on the part of the grievor and, while the grievor mentioned the C&P was excessive given the circumstances, he did not make substantial representations to that effect; he, rather, primarily objected to the administration of the C&P. The Board also noted that, in the grievor's case, the monitoring period was set at the maximum, that being nine months, which is allowable under the policy on remedial measures.

The Board pointed out that, notwithstanding the fact that the remedial measures form indicated monthly briefings, there is no requirement in the policy that a member must be counselled on a monthly basis; the policy states that the member should be regularly briefed. While the Board agreed that two personnel development reviews during a nine-month monitoring period cannot reasonably be considered as regular briefings. this in and of itself does not render the C&P invalid. The Board noted the grievor's Commanding Officer's (CO) explanations relating to unit's operational priorities, the limited availability of experienced supervisors and the constant high tempo within the unit due to training and exercises; in addition, the Board considered the fact that the unit which imposed the C&P and included monthly briefings in the remedial measures was not the unit which carried out the administration of the C&P. The Board found the explanations given by the CO were reasonable in the circumstances and fit the description of service reasons provided for in the policy. The Board concluded that the C&P was valid.

The Board agreed with the grievor that the letter of closure could have and should have been provided earlier as required by policy; however, while it was unfortunate this was not done immediately following the end of the monitoring period, the Board noted that the letter has now been written.

The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff to deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–10–22

The FA agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.