# 2012-084 Careers, Initial Counselling (IC)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–09–07

The grievor, a member of a Military Police Detachment (MP Det), took issue with the wording of an initial counselling (IC), in particular that he "continually demonstrate[d] an inability to follow direction". The grievor noted that although numerous emails had been forwarded as reminders of procedures, he was never counselled individually concerning his failure to follow directions, nor were there any notations in this regard on his personnel evaluation reports. As well, the grievor contended that the incident leading to the IC was not sufficiently serious to justify a remedial measure and requested that the IC form and all related documents be removed from his file.

Notwithstanding that the IC was signed by the Chief of Staff (COS) of the unit where the MP Det was located, the Commanding Officer of the MP Squadron (CO MP Sqn) responsible for the MP Det was determined to be the appropriate initial authority (IA). The latter wrote a synopsis and disclosed it to the grievor. In the synopsis, the CO indicated that the emails sent to the unit regarding reporting expectations could not be considered in the validity of the IC because emails should not have been used to communicate permanent corporate administrative direction. However, the CO noted the grievor had signed as having read and understood the MP standard operating procedures (SOP) nine months prior to the incident resulting in the IC and he was therefore aware of the expectations regarding reports. The CO was of the view that the IC was warranted, but recommended that the wording be modified.

As a preliminary issue, the Board pointed out the confusion in regard to the handling of the grievance at the IA level. The Board confirmed that prior to 1 April 2012, administrative matters involving MPs were handled through the chain of command (CoS) of the unit/base/wing. Consequently, the Board was of the view that the COS, being the next military officer in the MP Det Commander's CoS was the appropriate initiating authority for the IC which was issued 16 February 2011. As well, in the circumstances, the initiating authority's superior would have been the appropriate IA. The Board also noted that the CO who was identified as the IA, misunderstood his role by producing a synopsis along with recommendations, rather than a decision. The Board deemed the grievance referred without an IA decision and considered the contents of the synopsis as subject matter expert's comments.

The Board noted that Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 5019-4 - Remedial Measures, provides that a remedial measure may be initiated if there is reliable evidence that establishes on a balance of probabilities that a Canadian Forces (CF) member has demonstrated a performance deficiency whereby, over a reasonable period of time, the CF member has not met the applicable standard of performance. In the case at hand, the Board found no evidence of a history that the grievor "continually demonstrated an inability to follow the direction of his supervisors"; as pointed out in the CO's synopsis, the emails which were reminders of previously published SOPs were not forwarded specifically to the grievor, but to all MP Det personnel. Furthermore, although the Board agreed that the proposed wording in the CO's synopsis correctly described the performance issue, it was not convinced that the grievor deserved a remedial measure because the one transgression was relatively minor and, as previously indicated, there was no evidence that the grievor had a history of being unable to follow the direction of his supervisors.

In the Board's opinion, a verbal counselling would have been sufficient as the incident did not meet the seriousness criterion required to administer a remedial measure as described in DAOD 5019-4.

The Board recommended the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) uphold the grievance.

The Board recommended the CDS direct that the IC form and any related documentation be purged from the grievor's file and disposed of in accordance with the National Archives of Canada Act.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–07–22

Informal Resolution