# 2013-058 Harassment, Personnel Evaluation Report (PER), Promotion

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–09–20

The grievor informed her Commanding Officer (CO) that she was pregnant and engaged in a personal relationship with a senior officer from another unit who had recently separated. Several months later, the respective units conducted an investigation. While it was determined that the relationship did not contravene Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 5019-1, Personal Relationships and Fraternization, the CO issued a written order and placed it on the grievor's personnel file (despite her objections), to the effect that she was not to discuss her personal relationship at work or within the confines of the Wing. The grievor alleged that her annual personnel evaluation report (PER) was unfairly downgraded as a result of her personal relationship. She also submitted a harassment complaint alleging abuse of authority by her CO. After an initial assessment and further fact gathering, the harassment complaint was dismissed by the Responsible Officer (RO) on the basis that it did not meet the criteria of the definition of harassment.

The grievor submitted a grievance objecting to the written order, challenging the annual PER she was given and the determination by the RO that her compliant did meet the definition. As redress, she sought to have her allegation properly investigated by a RO outside of the Wing, that an investigation be conducted on her CO's actions, that she be given a replacement PER, that she be retroactively promoted and that she receive a written apology from her CO, the RO and other officers involved in the handling of her case. There was no Initial Authority decision.

The issues before the Committee were to determine if the written order was a proper exercise of authority, whether the PER accurately reflected the grievor's performance and potential and whether the harassment complaint was handled in accordance with the applicable policy.

In the Committee's view, the relationship was plainly not an adverse personal relationship and there were no grounds to investigate. The Committee found that the CO's order may have been lawful, but it was not justified given that the CO's concerns stemmed from the gossip of others, not from the actions of the grievor. The Committee also found that it was unfair to the grievor to have the order placed on her personnel file. As regards the PER, the Committee determined that the grievor did not show, on the balance of probabilities, that it had been downgraded due to her relationship or that it did not properly describe her performance and potential. Finally, the Committee found that the harassment complaint was not handled in accordance with the applicable policy, as the situational assessment was not conducted on the basis of the allegations but rather upon further fact gathering. The situational assessment was also based on unreasonable assumptions.

The Committee recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff that he partial grant redress by ordering that any and all records referencing the written order be removed from departmental files and that the harassment complaint be properly investigated. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, the issue of the PER could be revisited.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–06–27

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be partially upheld, but on different findings. The CDS was of the view that the file amply demonstrated that the grievor's Commanding Officer (CO) was attempting to address what was perceived to be a potential disciplinary issue. Having a duty to exercise his responsibilities with regard to maintaining unit discipline, the CDS believed that this is why the CO gave the grievor an order. The CDS found that the grievor did not provide new pertinent information, and he agreed with the Responsible Officer's determination that the CO's actions did not meet the definition of harassment. Consequently, the CDS did not agree with the Committee's recommendation that an harassment investigation be conducted towards the CO. However, the CDS agreed with the Committee's finding that the CO's order was not reasonable, but no further action was required since the order was already removed from the grievor's file. Regarding the grievor's Personnel Evaluation Report (PER), the CDS provided a replacement PER that reflects the changes specified in his decision.