Redress of Grievance – Mega thread [MERGED]

[pte4life]

And this article here:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Community/MapleLeaf/article_e.asp?id=3078

Understanding the current personnel appraisal system by Capt P. D. Beatty

"The PDR process incorporates two feedback sessions during the reporting period designed to review the member's performance—one at the mid-point of the reporting period, the second at the end of the reporting period, concurrent with the PER interview. While a member should be counselled if, in the opinion of their chain of command, the level of performance or potential falls below acceptable standards, there is no CFPAS requirement to counsel the member if their demonstrated performance and potential remain above the required standard, even if the level of performance is below the previous year’s."

Couldn't the second interm report/session which you have at the same time you receive your PER be considered prior counselling, and thus you can be legitimately critisized for the deficiency??  Or would this be regarded as not enough time to correct the deficenicy?

 

[George Wallace]

Couldn't the second interm report/session which you have at the same time you receive your PER be considered prior counselling, and thus you can be legitimately critisized for the deficiency??  Or would this be regarded as not enough time to correct the deficenicy?

Your second report should not be at the same time as you receive your PER, as the PDR is supposed to be on a three month cycle.......giving you at least three PDR meetings/counselling sessions prior to your PER

 

[Franko]

Your PDRs are to address the problems/ counsel you.

Normally if it isn't resolved during the first or second PDR you can rest assured it will be noted on your PER.

Again, get your copies of previous PDRs for the reporting period in dispute ready for your redress.

Regards

 

[aesop081]

as the PDR is supposed to be on a three month cycle.......

Thats not correct. The 3 month thing that most units do is self-imposed and not mandated in the CFPAS system as noted a few posts above.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Thats not correct. The 3 month thing that most units do is self-imposed and not mandated in the CFPAS system as noted a few posts above.

From the CFPAS Help File Version 2007.0.3:

The PDR is a two step process. Step 1 is the initial interview between the member and supervisor, which occurs at the beginning of the reporting period. The aim of this interview is to establish a list of critical tasks and the results expected of the member during the reporting period. This initial meeting must also be used by the supervisor and member to develop an initial action plan for the member. Step 2 of the PDR process consists of a minimum of two feedback sessions that take place during the reporting period. The aim of the feedback sessions is to review the member's performance and to establish performance and potential development action plans. The feedback sessions will be based on the member's accomplishments and the supervisor's assessment. The PDR process is formally closed with the PER briefing. Upon completion of the reporting year, the PDR cycle is restarted with a re-establishment of critical tasks and action plans. The Handbook for the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS) contained in the CFPAS application (Help file), provides the necessary guidance for detailed conduct of the PDR process and completion of the PDR form.

Step 1 of the process occurs during the initial meeting between the supervisor and member at the beginning of the reporting period or when a new supervisor or member is assigned. A new supervisor has the option of either confirming the previous supervisor's PDR or initiating a new one. Step 2 of the PDR consists of a minimum of two feedback sessions; the first at the mid point and the second at the end of the reporting period concurrent with the PER debrief. Feedback sessions may occur more often as desired or directed by local commanders.

The PDR will be used by a unit to report a member's performance to the member's home unit during operational deployments under 3 months duration or temporary assignments such as attached postings, TD, or secondments of any length. A written assessment may be used in lieu of the PDR when its use is not feasible. In this case, the assessments must be attached and kept on the PDR file with reference made to them within section one of the PDR. On posting, losing units will use the PDR to pass a member's performance/potential information to the gaining unit. The home or gaining unit will use this information in preparing the member's Annual PER.

PDRs may be handwritten, however typed is preferable. COs are to ensure that assessments originating from their unit are accurate and not inflated. The member's PDR is to be stored in a member's unit personnel file or Unit Employment Record, whichever is more convenient, for a minimum of two years after which they are to be destroyed.  Units are reminded of the importance of the PDR process and of the fact that it is not optional it is mandatory.

* CFPAS Policy Directive Para 1 from the same ref states:

This directive prescribes the policy governing the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS). This directive is to be read in conjunction with the Handbook for the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS), contained in the CFPAS application (Help file), which contains specific procedures and detailed descriptions of CFPAS processes.

From the CFPAS Application Help File:

204. PDR Feedback Sessions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second part of the process involves two feedback sessions: one at the mid-point of the reporting period and the second at the end of the reporting period, concurrent with the PER interview. When you, as a supervisor give feedback, you are acting as a steering mechanism, sending signals to your subordinates to ensure they stay on course. To be effective, you must be giving subordinates feedback on a continual basis; providing feedback only once a year rarely changes behaviour. Feedback has maximum impact when it is given as close as possible to the action. If a subordinate does something well, tell her/him immediately. Similarly, if the subordinate behaves ineffectively, also ensure he/she is made aware of it immediately. “Saving up” performance-related information, especially if it is negative, may result in feelings of resentment and frustration, and if it is positive, may be forgotten by the time a formal session is held. To complement the daily feedback that supervisors should routinely give to members, formal feedback sessions have been built into the CFPAS. Their purpose is to summarize performance-related information, and to provide a tool for documenting performance throughout the year. There should be a minimum of one feedback session during the reporting period with a final feedback session being the PER interview. Ideally, feedback interviews should occur approximately every four months. The frequency of these interviews will depend on how a subordinate is performing, the unit’s schedule and workload.

Feedback sessions serve several functions:
-provide information to subordinates on how well they are doing with respect to the Critical Tasks you have assigned them;
-provide guidance on how they can perform better;
-motivate subordinates, resulting in greater effort on their part; and
-recognize the achievements of subordinates, giving them a sense of satisfaction and inspiring them to try harder.

 

[pte4life]

hey eye in the sky, thanks again for such a through responce. One question regarding

* CFPAS Policy Directive Para 1 from the same ref states:

This directive prescribes the policy governing the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS). This directive is to be read in conjunction with the Handbook for the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS), contained in the CFPAS application (Help file), which contains specific procedures and detailed descriptions of CFPAS processes.

I actually relate to this circumstance. An individual became a new superrior, and never sat down with me for a critical tasks briefing. You seem to know the documentation quite well, if you know off hand, or could easily find the source that refers to the superrior's requirement to have a critical tasks and duties brief upon change of command. I would really appreciate it. otherwise i'll just go digging again and see what i come up with.

 

[aesop081]

An individual became a new superrior, and never sat down with me for a critical tasks briefing.

Did your Job change in conjunction with the change in supervisor ?

If not then a new part 1 was not required IIRC

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Quick reply, before I dig.  

The new supervisor/superior is not necessarily required to go over these tasks with the mbr, as they are already laid out, but would be if there was a change to the initial PDR.

In the past, my superior (branch head) simply reviewed the PDR in place to famil themselves with my scope of duties.

Common sense applies, in that your duties did not change, only the person you report to.

I've quickly reviewed the CFPAS documentation and did not find anything on this requirement.  However, someone else may add to/correct me on this.

 

[pte4life]

my job did not change, no. The only thing that happened was, 'by the way MCpl. so and so is your new det commander.'

 

[aesop081]

my job did not change, no. The only thing that happened was, 'by the way MCpl. so and so is your new det commander.'

So there was no requirement for a New Part 1 .

 

[Franko]

So there was no requirement for a New Part 1 .

Exactly. The only time it's actually required is if your duties/ responsibilities change.

Mind you a member should read the part one PDR at least once a year and sign it off. As a MCpl you should know it clear as a bell without it being placed in front of you.

Regards

 

[pte4life]

i think you misunderstood. the . after mcpl. is b/c of the abbreviation. im not a mcpl.

 

[Say all again after]

Hope I'm not too late in this post. It is imperative that you be able to produce a copy of your PDR stipulating your strong performance, especially if there were unused lines in section 4 or 5 narratives (as this means that your supervisor could still have included information that was in the missing PDR).  If you pursue purely on the point of one PDR that was "not included" a grievance board reviewing any application for changes will note that, while your supervisors' performances lacked in that they did not properly follow the CFPAS process, it is a given that each member receives daily feedback either formally or informally (pat on the back "Good job Bloggins" qualifies).  What needs to be done is to show written substantiation from other supervisors, pers in your CoC, others senior in rank to yourself that your performance exceeded the comments in the PER AND that your CoC had access to this information but chose to ignore or not include it even though there was still room to discuss in the PER (see note below for more on this point).  That is the essence of any successful grievance.  Be careful to avoid any statement or argument that takes a board down the trail of "my supervisor failed" as you are talking about the performance of your CoC and not your own.  You will get a foot in the door with the point of fact that courses completed during the reporting period were not included in either section 3 (new skills, quals, duties), section 4 (performance) or section 5 (potential). 
Now...if there was no room in the PER narratives, if your boss used up all the lines, things become a little tougher as ultimately a supervisor holds the choice of what is /is not included in a PER.  Unless you can give overwhelming arguments that something should be included.  Example - A person completes post secondary education (college, university, post grad) but still gets an average for professional development, it should be argued that this potential factor should have been higher.
How are we doing so far?

 

[armyvern]

these are my REFs BTW. If there is anything else that may be approperate i would appreciate it!

a. CF Grievance Manual; May 2007
b. CFAO 19-32 Redress of Grievance
c. CFPAS (Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System) Appendix
d. DOAD 5019-4 Remedial Measures
e. DAOD 5050-1 Canadian Forces Personnel Records of the Director General   
     Recruiting and Military Careers and the Director Human Resources
     Information Management, and Service Estate Records of the Judge Advocate
     General

I've just read though this thread for the first time - don't know how I managed to miss it actually. I've looked through your posts in here (this thread) a couple of times and, for the life of me, I can't figure out why you are including DAOD 5019-4 Remedial Measures as one of your refs.

You need to get yourself an assisting officer.

Let me first state by saying that if you did receive an IC, RW or C&P - they must be noted on your annual PER by regulation. If you did not receive an IC, RW, or C&P - there are zero reasons which are of benefit to yourself to have your refs inclusive of this one. Unless, of course, you are arguing that as you did not receive an IC, RW, or C&P regarding a specific area that a shortfall in that area should not be reported on your PER. I will tell you right now as someone who has acted as an assistant in many PER Grievances ... WRONG MOVE.

ICs, RWs, & C&Ps are administrative actions that are issued when a member fails to meet a minimal standard of conduct or performance. If you received an assessment factor of "NI" (Needs Improvement), "D" (Developing), "S" (Skilled),"ES" (Exceeded Standard), or "M" (Mastered) - then you have indeed 'met' at least the minimum standard. If your scores are one of those noted above - keep 5019-4 OUT of your Grievance.

Member's who've received rating factors of "U" (Unacceptable & in reality ... pretty f'n bad) will quite often be recipients of ICs, RWs or C&Ps. Even they may sometimes receive a higher rating. You certainly don't want to be substantiating a Grievance by saying - "I may have had shortfalls, but I wasn't issued an IC, RW, or C&P so those shortfalls shouldn't be on my PER." That's simply a false statement. Personally, I'd much rather have a Disciplinary Action noted that has a time-limit, than an administrative action noted on my file that lasts for career. ICs, RWs & C&Ps are administrative actions that are reserved for serious or repeated defeciencies & shortcomings. They aren't usually issued because some Sgt had to tell you to get your hands out of your pockets or get your beret on straight.

BUT, if a Sgt was writing your PER and made the remark in it "Pte Bloggins' dress needs improvement; he required correction by supervisors in this area as he wore his headdress improperly" no admin action (ICs, RWs, C&Ps) would be necessary - and yet it is still a valid point for the supervisor to note on your PER in the area of deportment (I've seen it used in "reliability" as well as under "accountability" within the performance assessment).

Long and the short, nothing written on your PER should be a surprise to you. Everyone here is correct in stating that any shortcomings brought forward on your PER - should have been noted in at least one PDR given to you by a supervisor during the reporting period. Technicly. Although - even if they weren't ... I have issues with those who admit the shortcoming occured, that are not shocked by hearing of it, but play the technicality card to get out of it. To me, that equates an "accounability" (for one's own actions) shortfall coming to note for the upcoming PDR.

That all being said, I am a firm believer in fairness. But, I am also a firm believer in "if it's true, then live with it". A PER should be inclusive of both the good and the bad - that's what makes them fair and honest assessments. To ask for a shortfall to be removed based upon a technicality may be fair, but then - if it was admittedly, by you, a true shortfall - is it really "honest" of you to ask for it to be removed?

If you have copies of your PDRs (and you should) and your PER shortfalls were not mentioned in them - you have a case. Be advised though - that if your supervisor has a single email sent to you that made a remark about that shortfall requiring correction - that they also have a case for substantiating it's inclusion onto your PER - for they then can indeed show that you were 'notified' of that shortfall and that it's not really a surprise to you after all.

If you completed career or other substantive courses and training, and it was not included in the "new qualifications & skills block" (where they should be listed - and you should also have copies of those course reports), you also have a case. Especially so if no mention of them was given in the narrative either. If included under the "new skills and qualifications" block, there does not - repeat not - have to be anything written about them in the narrative although that is unusual. Your performance on them could be used to substaintiate a certain ranking, but other factors such as "exercise performance" may still be used to substantiate a lower (or higher) ranking than the course report. The PER is supposed to be refelective of an overview of "total" performance levels over the course of the year. One could have performed excellent on a month long course, but very shitty for the remainder of the year - or vice versa.

If only the bad, and none of the good is noted on your PER, you also have a viable Grieveance based upon Para 17c of the CFPAS Policy Directive (Responsibilities of Commanding Officers) which states:

17. The responsibility for conducting the PDR process for each member and for submission of a member's PER rests with that member's unit Commanding Officer. This responsibility includes the following:

...
c. ensure that all required information concerning the performance and potential of members during the entire reporting period is incorporated into the PER;
...

You also have asked for the ref which states shortcomings can not be noted on the PER if you haven't been informed of them on a PDR - you won't find that reference because it doesn't say that.

What is actually said is that "Good leadership practices require that, prior to assigning an Unacceptable AF rating, supervisors will have previously counseled the member. Subordinates shouldnever be given negative performance information for the first time during a PER interview." Ref: CFPAS Handbook, Ch 3, Art 301, para 4 - PE Guidelines

 

[BinRat55]

If I ever end up getting charged with murder, I want Vern for my lawyer. I just want that out there.

Vern, who woulda thunk you were gonna be this good all those years in Pet, walking and smoking? My hat is off to you - I think i'm going to start a new thread, call it "Vote Vern for CDS" thread!! You'd have mine - and then maybe we'd all get a boot allowance!!

 

[armyvern]

If I ever end up getting charged with murder, I want Vern for my lawyer. I just want that out there.

Vern, who woulda thunk you were gonna be this good all those years in Pet, walking and smoking? My hat is off to you - I think i'm going to start a new thread, call it "Vote Vern for CDS" thread!! You'd have mine - and then maybe we'd all get a boot allowance!!

It's not about being good - it's about paying attention to detail and doing my job as fairly as I can, but I'm not about to make excuses for anyone either.

Did you also notice that the ref:

You also have asked for the ref which states shortcomings can not be noted on the PER if you haven't been informed of them on a PDR - you won't find that reference because it doesn't say that.

What is actually said is that "Good leadership practices require that, prior to assigning an Unacceptable AF rating, supervisors will have previously counseled the member. Subordinates should never be given negative performance information for the first time during a PER interview." Ref: CFPAS Handbook, Ch 3, Art 301, para 4 - PE Guidelines

ONLY says that before assigning a "U" AF rating on the PER, that the supervisor will have previously counseled the member? It NEVER says that must be done on a PDR - it only states that counseling (ie an email or an office discussion or a note on the PDR in "areas for development" ALL: qualify as "counseling"). If the supervisor can back up that the member was "counseled" and that this item is not "news" to the member (ie notified of the defeciency), the supervisor has fulfilled their obligation to the subordinate. No where is there a mention that counselling must occur (or that "notification" must occur) on a PDR.

If that were the case, then buddy getting his butt into big time crap the last week of March would be "unmentionable" on the PER as he wouldn't have recd a PDR mentioning that "crap" prior to getting his PER; that's simply an incorrect interpretation of the above ref. Counselling does not have to occur during a PDR session. I'd actually hope that supervisors are counselling their members regarding performance/conduct a whole heck of a lot than the minimal 2 X per year required by PDR - that should be a continuous event.

 

[BinRat55]

I firmly beleive that WHEN we stick to the PDR / PER process it works for us - quite well. But you are right, we need the right frame of mind and adhere to what we are actually doing as supervisors... that being said, toss a CCC conviction into the mix during March. It MUST be mentioned on a PER with no time to council VIA PDR session. Office visits only, but there is still records.

 

[Greymatters]

Despite the glitches pointed out, the CF process is IMO superior to other processes used in the commercial/private sector companies...

 

[BinRat55]

Despite the glitches pointed out, the CF process is IMO superior to other processes used in the commercial/private sector companies...

I whole-heartedly agree - when used properly. When used incorrectly, it can be a weapon of unimaginable force and destruction!!  Now where did I put that crayon?? 

 

[armyvern]

I never wrote a PER that I didn't like!!  >