# 2015-158 Careers, Initial Counselling (IC), Remedial Measures

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–09–24

On the same day that the grievor submitted a grievance, requesting that an Initial Counselling (IC) he had received for alleged conduct deficiencies be quashed, he was given a Personnel Development Review (PDR). The grievor maintained that the language used in the PDR was remarkably similar to the alleged deficiencies that led to the initiation of the IC and claimed that the PDR was intended to circumvent the grievance process and penalize him for its submission.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the decision to issue the PDR was made by the grievor's Chain of Command prior to the IC being issued. As such, the IA found the timing to be logical given the well-documented concerns regarding the grievor's conduct and performance. The IA determined that the PDR should remain intact and denied the grievance.

The Committee found no evidence that the PDR was intended to penalize the grievor or that its language was intended to circumvent the grievance process. However, the Committee took issue with portions of the language used in the grievor's PDR, finding that some information stated therein was not demonstrably factual nor accurate.

The Committee recommended that the comments in question be removed from the grievor's PDR.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–12–04

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the comments be removed from the grievor's PDR.