If a CAF member on mobile, click on the drop down for resources. Also check our BLOG.
If a CAF member on mobile, click on the drop down for resources. Also check our BLOG.
The form is accessible via DWAN and/or any personal device. If logging in via a personal device, CAF members will be prompted to enter their D365 credentials prior to accessing the form.
Once the digital grievance form has been submitted, the grievance will be routed to the Commanding Officer of the aggrieved member. The grievance must meet all the requirements under QR&O 7.08 – Submission of a Grievance. CAF grievances may only be submitted by serving CAF members and must be submitted within three months after the day on which the grievor knew or ought reasonably to have known of the decision, act or omission in respect of which the grievance is submitted.
(1) A grievance shall be submitted within three months after the day on which the grievor knew or ought reasonably to have known of the decision, act or omission in respect of which the grievance is submitted.
(2) A grievor who submits a grievance after the expiration of the time limit set out in paragraph (1) shall include in the grievance reasons for the delay.
(3) The initial authority or, in the case of a grievance to which Section 2 does not apply, the final authority may consider a grievance that is submitted after the expiration of the time limit if satisfied it is in the interests of justice to do so. If not satisfied, the grievor shall be provided reasons in writing.
Digital Grievance Information: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/conflict-misconduct/conflict-harassment/grievances.html
If you are thinking about submitting a grievance, you can search the case summaries for a similar grievance that you are looking to submit. You may find someone who was provided a favorable decision already for a case with similar circumstances. CLICK ON "MOST RECENT CASE SUMMARIES" to expand them.
Promotion
F&R Date: 2018-02-27
The grievor contested not being promoted despite an available vacancy and her position as next in line for promotion. The grievor alleged that the Career Manager (CM) advised her that she was not promoted because there was no service requirement and because she had been involved in an interpersonal conflict with her supervisor and was not ready for promotion.
The Director General Military Careers, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), found that the CM, the Deputy Commanding Officer and the Trade Advisor had discussed the situation and determined that there was no military requirement to fill the vacant position in question. The IA discounted the other reasons alleged by the grievor for not being promoted.
The Committee contacted the CM and the Trade Advisor for further information on why the grievor had not been promoted. The CM confirmed his previous statement that there was no military requirement to promote, and denied the grievor's allegation of the real reason she was not promoted. However, the Trade Advisor indicated that, due to the interpersonal conflict she had with her supervisor, the grievor was not considered to possess the necessary skills to be promoted. Therefore, a decision was made to delay for a year before filling the vacant position.
The Committee first noted that the grievor's interpersonal conflict with her supervisor was in fact a harassment complaint she had lodged against him. The supervisor was eventually removed from the position although the complaint did not appear to have been formally investigated.
Based on the Trade Advisor's confirmation, the Committee found that he and the CM had discussed the possibility of promoting the grievor into the vacant position and that, for reasons having nothing to do with the military requirement, they decided that the grievor was not deserving of promotion.
The Committee considered the grievor's strong record of annual performance appraisals and her position as next in line for promotion and concluded that all necessary conditions for promotion had been met during the timeframe of the vacancy in question. The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff direct the promotion of grievor retroactive to the date in question.
Remedial Measures
F&R Date: 2023-03-21
The grievor disputed the remedial measure (RM) they received, arguing that there was no evidence to support the alleged performance deficiency.
The Commander Naval Reserve, as the Initial Authority, found that the combination of a credible witness statement, together with the grievor's rank, position and experience, were sufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the grievor had demonstrated a performance deficiency and the RM should stand.
The Committee found that there was no physical evidence of the alleged performance deficiency, and no signed witness statement. The Committee concluded that the evidence used by the Chain of Command to issue the RM failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of a performance deficiency. Therefore, the RM should not stand.
The Committee recommended that the Final Authority direct that the RM be expunged from the grievor's personnel record and that any copies be destroyed.
Copyright © 2024 Do The Right Thing - All Rights Reserved.
New ATIA - CAF members identified by Gender and their trades - check it out at the button below.