# 2022-024 Careers, Retaliation

Case summary

F&R date: 2022-12-19

The grievor argued that the decision to rescind his nomination as a course instructor was an act of reprisal prompted by a previous grievance. The grievor's Commanding Officer (CO) acknowledged that information related to the grievor's conduct was obtained through his previous grievance, but indicated that the decision to remove the grievor's nomination was based on his behaviour that cast doubt on the grievor's suitability as a course instructor.

The Initial Authority denied the grievance, finding that the CO appropriately made an honest assessment of the grievor's suitability as course instructor.

The Committee found that it was an error for the grievor to be nominated in the first place when his conduct indicated a lack of compatibility with the criteria for nominating instructors, an error which occurred because the CO had not been made aware of the conduct incidents. The Committee further found that the CO's decision to remove support for the grievor's nomination as course instructor was justified.

The Committee found that the decision to remove the grievor's nomination did not constitute a reprisal; rather, it was the result of the CO's correction of an error discovered by way of a grievance, as provided for in subsection 29(5) of the National Defence Act. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.