# 2021-076 Careers, Initial Counselling, Personnel Evaluation Report, Recorded Warning, Remedial Measures

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-03-16

The grievor contested an Initial Counselling (IC) and a subsequent Recorded Warning (RW) issued to him for a performance deficiency, described as repeatedly submitting products that were low quality and below the expectations of his rank. The grievor contended that his supervisor exhibited a pattern of bias against him that created a toxic work environment and argued that his performance was not deficient and that his previous Personnel Evaluation Reports (PER) confirmed he had historically met and exceeded the expectations of his rank. As redress, he sought to have the IC and RW removed from his personnel file and his PER for that period corrected to remove the adverse evaluation resulting from his supervisor's biases that led to the remedial measures.

The Initial Authority found that the grievor submitted his grievance outside the prescribed time period. He refused to accept the grievance as he did not find it would be in the interests of justice to do so.

The Committee proceeded to review three Personnel Development Reviews issued to the grievor leading up to the IC and the RW and queried current and former members of the grievor's unit. The Committee found that the grievor's performance was deficient and that, despite minor irregularities in administration, the IC was justified. The Committee further examined the feedback given by the grievor's chain of command during the monitoring period of the IC and found that he had not overcome his performance deficiency, which led to the issuance of the RW. However, the Committee found that the RW had been suspended due to administrative and training imperatives, for myriad reasons was never resumed, rendering it void. Accordingly, the Committee recommended the removal of the RW from the grievor's personnel file.

The Committee noted that, in accordance with the Canadian Forces Performance Appraisal System, the grievor's performance in prior years and at lower ranks was not relevant when evaluating his performance for the current period. The Committee also found that the grievor's supervisor was not biased and had been objective, positive and constructively critical in his evaluation of the grievor. Finally, the Committee found that the grievor's PER for that period appropriately reflected his demonstrated performance and potential for that reporting period.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not afford the grievor redress. The Committee also recommended that the FA direct that the voided RW and any references to it be removed from the grievor's personnel file.