# 2012-160 Careers, Recorded Warning, Remedial Measures

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–01–29

The grievor was administered a Recorded Warning for a conduct deficiency after a repeat of the same inappropriate behaviour that had previously led to an Initial Counselling. The Recorded Warning provided for a six-month monitoring period with monthly progress briefing sessions.

After being posted, the grievor submitted a grievance to his new Commanding Officer stating that the Recorded Warning had not been properly administered in accordance with Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 5019-4 – Remedial Measures. The grievor argued that he only received two progress briefing sessions during the monitoring period, which negated him the necessary feedback to overcome his deficiency. In addition, he submitted that the monitoring period was extended beyond the provisions of the DAOD given that he signed the removal letter six weeks after the originally scheduled end-date. He refuted the assertion by the issuing Commanding Officer that the monitoring period ended as scheduled and that the date of the removal letter is inconsequential. The grievor claimed that the measure was strictly aimed at chastising him and asked that the Recorded Warning, and all documents making reference to it, be expunged from his Personnel File.

The Initial Authority, the grievor's new Commanding Officer, denied the grievance concluding that the Recorded Warning was administered in accordance with the procedures set out in the DAOD and that the delay in signing the closing letter was reasonable.

The Board found that while the progress briefings did not adhere to the initial schedule, considering the nature of the reproached behaviour, the grievor's rank and experience and the fact that he did not repeat the behaviour, the Recorded Warning met the intent and requirements of the DAOD. The Board also looked at the monitoring period and found that the DAOD did not prescribe the frequency of progress-briefing sessions but rather that a member be regularly briefed and provided with the necessary leadership and support to overcome his deficiency, which depends on the circumstances of each case. The Board found that the DAOD only specified that the notice of closure must be provided in writing at the end of the monitoring period, it did not require that it be done exactly on the same day. The Board noted that it would be preferable for the closure documentation to be signed as soon as possible after the end of the monitoring period, but that the delay was reasonable in the circumstances. The Board did not find indication that the monitoring period had been extended beyond the provisions of the DAOD or the period prescribed in the Recorded Warning.

The Board concluded that the Recorded Warning was not aimed at chastising the grievor but rather to help him take note of and overcome a conduct deficiency, and that the procedural issues he raised did not call into question the legitimacy of the Recorded Warning.

The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff to deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–04–22

The FA agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.