# 2021-198 Careers, Initial Counselling

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-08-03

The grievor argued that the findings and the recommendations of the investigation used to justify the Initial Counselling (IC) that she received were unsupported by the facts. She claimed that she was not afforded procedural fairness and maintained that she did not use inappropriate language when addressing two civilian Defence Team members.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievor redress and found that she had been treated fairly and in accordance with the applicable regulation and policy. The IA found that though the incident did not meet the threshold of harassment, the behavior described was not demonstrative of the Canadian Armed Forces values and ethics and warranted an investigation. Further, the IA confirmed that the IC was administered correctly and that the Commanding Officer followed the appropriate procedures in addressing a formal complaint. Lastly, the IA stated that while the grievor was interested in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), the other parties may not have agreed to it.

The Committee found that the absence of adequate rules contributed to the situation but that on a balance of probabilities, the grievor used the reported language and that the lowest remedial measure, an IC, was justified in the circumstances. The Committee noted that while the goal of parties participating in ADR is to prevent disputes from arising or escalating when possible, the fact that no chances were given for ADR to take place should not constitute an excuse not to impose a remedial measure.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford redress.

FA decision summary

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