# 2019-152 Harassment, Abuse of authority, Class A Reserve Service, Class B Reserve Service, Harassment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-05-27

In three separate grievances that the Committee consolidated into one, the grievor contested the loss of Class “A” training opportunities, his former chain of command’s (CoC) inaction in administering a harassment complaint and subsequent grievances, and the findings of an eventual situational assessment (SA) into the complaint. As redress, the grievor requested compensation for the missed training opportunities, compensation for the personal time and effort he expended on his harassment complaint and related grievances, and confirmation that he had been harassed.

Regarding the Class “A” Reserve Service grievance, the Initial Authority (IA) found that the grievor was not entitled to payment for service not performed. Regarding the SA grievance, the IA found that the SA's findings were reasonable and justified. Finally, regarding the harassment administration grievance, the IA did not render a decision within the statutory time limit and the grievor asked that it be referred to the Final Authority (FA).

The Committee found that in accordance with Reserve Force service policy, Class “A” service is based on operational requirements, is not guaranteed and cannot be authorized retroactively. Accordingly, it found that the grievor was not entitled to financial compensation for missed Class “A” training opportunities.

The Committee agreed with most of the SA's findings into the grievor's harassment allegations, finding that three of his allegations did not meet the definition of harassment. However, citing its own findings in a previous grievance submitted by the grievor on the subject, the Committee found that the SA was clearly wrong in finding that a cancellation of the grievor's previously authorized Class “B” assignment was not retaliatory or harassment.

Regarding the grievor's CoC's inaction in administering his harassment complaint and related grievances, the Committee identified numerous errors and omissions his CoC made in those processes that resulted in the grievor having to expend his own time and effort to resolve and clarify what was properly the responsibility of the CoC.

The Committee recommended that the FA afford the grievor the redress it had recommended in his previous grievance related to the retaliatory cancellation of his Class “B” assignment by granting him an appropriate period of compensatory Class “B” Reserve Service. As redress for the difficulties the grievor experienced in pursuing his harassment complaint and subsequent related grievances, the Committee recommended that the FA grant the grievor an extension to that period of Class “B” Reserve Service.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff, as Final Authority, agreed with the Committee's findings, but rather than extending the grievor's Class “B” service, directed that the grievor be paid for 8.5 days he had worked and that the disputed Personnel Development Review be removed from his records.