Case # 2008-012

Harassment, Personnel Evaluation Report (PER), Situational Assessment

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2009-09-15

The grievor contested the determination of the harassment complaint she had submitted against her supervisor and colleagues. The Responsible Officer (RO) determined that the alleged incidents were within the proper exercise of authority, and did not meet the definition of harassment.

The grievor contended that the harassment advisor’s preliminary assessment of the situation was flawed, and that the RO ought to have come to the conclusion that the alleged incidents did meet the definition of harassment. She also claimed that she had been issued an unfair personnel evaluation report (PER) due to the harassment she experienced.

There was no initial authority decision in this matter.

The Board found that the situational assessment (SA), performed by the RO, was inadequate, and was not conducted according to the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Guidelines (Guidelines). The RO sought representations from the respondents of the complaint, despite the fact that the Guidelines do not contemplate an investigation during the SA process. Further, the RO did not address each of the grievor’s allegations separately, making it difficult to conclude that each allegation was given proper attention.

Upon reviewing each of the grievor’s allegations, the Board found that some of the allegations would meet the definition of harassment, if proven to be true. As such, the Board found that some of the grievor’s allegations ought to have been investigated.

With regard to the grievor’s PER, the Board compared the scores given to the grievor with the narratives for each performance assessment factor (PAF), and potential factor (PF) in dispute. The Board found that some of the PAF and PF ought to be increased. In addition, the Board found that the grievor’s scores supported a promotion recommendation of “Ready”, as opposed to one of “Developing” as she received.

The Board recommended that the grievance be partially upheld.

The Board recommend that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) direct a harassment investigation into the allegations that met the threshold test of the SA.

The Board recommended that the CDS order that certain of the grievor’s PAF and PF be increased. Further, due to the substantial increase in the rating scores, the Board recommend promotion recommendation be changed from Developing to Ready, and that the CDS convene supplementary selection boards for promotions, if necessary.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2010-06-17

The CDS partially disagreed with the Board's findings and its recommendation. The CDS agreed with the Board's finding that the SA was inadequate. The Harassment Prevention and Resolution Guidelines do not contemplate the use of respondent's comments, but is solely a review of the harassment complaint itself in order to determine whether or not it complies with the elements of a complaint and whether the allegations meet the definition of harassment. The CDS was also of the view that the SA was not completed within a reasonable timeframe, since it took almost four months for the RO to respond to the grievor. The CDS asked the comd Canadian Expeditionary Force Command to review this issue and to make any adjustments to harassment investigations done within a theatre of operations as he deems necessary.

Although the CDS agreed with the Board's finding that some of the allegations would meet the definition of harassment, if proven to be true, he was not prepared to order an investigation as recommended by the Board, since the grievor had already accepted an apology from one of the respondents. The CDS partially agreed with the Board's recommendation with regard to its evaluation of PAF and PF ratings. Finally, following his consultation with the DGMC staff and the grievor's career manager, the CDS found that there was no requirement for a supplementary merit board for promotion year 2010.