# 2021-319 Careers, Initial Counselling, Remedial Measures

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-01-09

The grievor was issued an initial counselling (IC) remedial measure (RM) for a performance deficiency and submitted a grievance against the IC. The grievor was then issued a recorded warning (RW) following a repeated incident. In determining the initial grievance, the Initial Authority (IA) removed both RMs due to the RMs having a poor plan to assist the grievor in overcoming the deficiencies. A replacement IC was later issued by the grievor's chain of command (CoC) covering the performance deficiencies described in the IC and RW. The grievor disputed the replacement IC, arguing that it was issued in retaliation by his CoC, that it was an abuse of authority and that it was unduly delayed.

The IA noted that the original performance deficiencies in the over-turned RMs still occurred and could not be ignored. The IA acknowledged that the replacement IC was delayed, but was done so out of compassion for the grievor's personal situation. The IA determined that the IC was justified.

The Committee noted that the grievor did not provide substantiation that his CoC was biased or that the IC was issued as retaliation. The Committee considered that the CoC had shown an impartial view towards the grievor and found that the Committee's de novo review of the grievance cured any possible instance of bias, reprisal or lapse of procedural fairness.

The Committee found that the grievor had displayed a performance deficiency that necessitated a RM and that a replacement RM was required to make the grievor aware of the deficiency and to provide guidance to rectify it. The Committee acknowledged that a RM should be issued swiftly following the occurrence of a performance deficiency but found that the initial grievance played a large role in the delay between the incidents and the replacement IC. The Committee found that the IC was properly administered and recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as FA, partially agreed with the Committee's findings and did not agree with the recommendation to replace the IC, since it was issued more than a year after 3 incidents and months after the other incidents after the original IC and RW were quashed. Therefore, the FA directed that the IC in question be removed from the grievor's personnel files.