# 2021-116 Careers, Course Failure, Training Failure

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-04-28

The grievor contended that the decision to fail his Performance Check (PC) re-test was unjustified because of software limitations and poorly communicated instructions. As redress, he sought a passing grade or another attempt on the PC.

There was no Initial Authority (IA) decision as the IA was unable to render a decision within the prescribed time limit.

The Committee noted that the course subject matter expert (SME) had addressed all of the grievors concerns, but because the IA failed to provide a decision, the grievor had never seen the SME comments to his complaint. The Committee disclosed the SME comments to the grievor who provided no further response.

The Committee found the SME comments to be convincing and, in particular, noted that the PC marking guide, which clearly identified the critical elements that must be achieved in order to pass the PC, had been provided to the grievor before he attempted his failed re-test. The marking guide clearly stipulated that the failure of any of the critical elements would result in failing the PC. Given that the grievor failed three of the critical elements, the Committee found that the grievor failed the PC re-test.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not grant redress.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as FA, agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation not to grant the grievor redress.