• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Redress of Grievance – Mega thread [MERGED]

garb811 said:
Uhhmm...why didn't you simply request a meeting with the CO?  That's the next step in informal resolution before going to Redress of Grievance.  Strike out with the CO, then you submit the paperwork.  By submitting the NOI now, it could be taken as an attempt to strong arm the CO when you do meet with him/her.

Disagree, the NOI, in my experience, just simply lets the CoC know that there is an issue (and the member is serious about it) and now is their chance to deal with it at the lowest level. After that comes the grievance if the member is not happy with the outcome.

I don't believe it would be taken as a strong arm attempt.

Without the NOI I've seen the concerns of the member just shrugged off.
 
garb811 said:
Uhhmm...why didn't you simply request a meeting with the CO?  That's the next step in informal resolution before going to Redress of Grievance.  Strike out with the CO, then you submit the paperwork.  By submitting the NOI now, it could be taken as an attempt to strong arm the CO when you do meet with him/her.

Some reading.  :)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-support-services-for-members-grievance/notice-of-intent-form.page?
 
I must add that a meeting with the deputy CO (who was away today), is actually the next step from what I was told by the Adjt to the CO. The Adjt did indeed say preference is to resolve this at the lowest level before getting the CO involved. I was asked to provide the last 2 PER scores.

This experience will remind me of the kind of supervisor I wouldn't want to be. I have 20 Subs I inherited last APS, one got promoted to a snr NCM last APS and my WO is getting promoted this summer. All other mbrs have a high ready, and it's justified by my observations of what everyone has done and meeting our mandate.

If someone is not taking note of what you are telling them for some odd reason, then is like forcing a camel to a stream. Someone mentioned up thread that I should request an AO....I definitely think am going to have to, as I don't want to end up putting foot in mouth...better someone of a similar rank to the supervisor (unbiased and perhaps out of trade) makes my case for me.
 
Thanks, but I'm more than aware of the NOI and the process. 

My point being, a simple request to see the CO to discuss the PER is simple, fast and to the point.  Being PER season, I'm pretty sure most Units have at least a few of these requests and (hopefully) they are treated seriously and expeditiously in order to meet the intent of informal resolution. 
 
PPCLI Guy said:
Bullshit. 

I have been around the system for some time now, and have occasionally held positions that had some insight into meriting etc.  The RMC myth is just that.  In the Infantry at least, it matters not one jot where you came from.  What matters is how you perform.  A former Regimental Colonel of the PPCLI was frequently heard to say that the only principle of career management that mattered was that "performance cannot be denied".  He joined late, and did not get a Bachelor's degree until after he was a LCol, so it is possible that he was right.

The RMC type was the OP's words, and I added the young part, which is an easy assumption.  I would totally agree that it doesn't matter where a person comes from, but age certainly does matter.  Holding a mid thirties Capt back to let through some mid twenties Capts that have a shot at the top seems all too common (even though it's a shot in the dark); and in a perverse way, it kind of makes sense.  After all, every Corps wants representation at the top.  The same goes for NCMs, only it will happen at the Sgt or WO rank and at a later age.

Also, I don't believe your example for your Regt Col applies here.  I doubt we will see too many Os get in without a degree anymore, and if they do, they won't have a chance at LCol.  Perhaps 10-15 years ago, but not now, and even if one or two persons did pull it off, it would be less than an exception.  I would suggest that your example is not only an exception, it is an outlier; even for back then, and most certainly for right now.

The one thing I would agree with your Regt Col is "that performance cannot be denied".  But that is incomplete, because it can surely be held up, which is what we might be seeing here, and are likely to see more of, for more than a few years to come.   

And for the OP, he can certanily make LCol or maybe even Col, but he will do a lot of watching younger guys go passed him in the process, not matter how good he is.
 
The COLD shoulder has started.....All that needs to be done on my part, is continue to respect the rank, carry out my assigned tasks, look out for the well-being of my subs. I don't have to get involve in personal chats with the supervisor, especially when am not getting any mentoring, consideration for my well-being etc

It's going to be a long FY
 
garb811 said:
Thanks, but I'm more than aware of the NOI and the process. 

My point being, a simple request to see the CO to discuss the PER is simple, fast and to the point.  Being PER season, I'm pretty sure most Units have at least a few of these requests and (hopefully) they are treated seriously and expeditiously in order to meet the intent of informal resolution.

Right.  Which is what QR & O, Vol I, Ch 7 says about "making an oral complaint to the CO".  I'll hazard a guess that DGCFGA introduced the NOI for a reason, to amplify/enhance the "informal" process as it progresses up a CofC to the CO level prior to a formal grievance being submitted. 

:2c:
 
How is everyone today, hope your day was fun and eventful?

***Update to this saga, and your infinite wisdom (those that have been in and around longer than I have) is needed once again....

It looks like my file landed on the CO's desk this morning. So during the latter part of the day, I received a correspondence from the said supervisor asking for the latest post grad module I did in the past FY, and "what do I think my PER score should be" from the status quo?

To refresh you memory folks....here is my previous PER score from the previous supervisor (experienced and came up thru the ranks) with me doing the same job:

Section 4: Performance

AF 1-4 (ES)
AF 5 (M)
AF 6 - 11 (ES)
AF 12-13 (M)
AF 14 (ES)
AF 15 - 16 (M)

Section 5: Potential

1. AA
2. O
3. AA
4. AA
5. AA
6. O

Current supervisor (also came up thru the ranks, but promoted last APS), which is what has led to this grievance process has me at this:

Section 4: Performance

AF 1-4 (S)
AF 9 (S)
AF 13 (S)
AF 15-16 (ES)

Section 5

All the same as above bar Dedication reduced to (AA)

My question to everyone....how should I approach the question posed to me above and what I have provided here, what do you think at a minimum should be the score? I have already submitted substantiated examples for AF 1-4 to show that I did more than last year and that perhaps a couple of AF should stay the same or move to the right (not left)

Cheers
 
Only you can make that kind of call.  Assess yourself and try to do it honestly.  Compare "your" scores against those assigned by your Supr.  After that, it's up to you to "substantiate" exactly why you think you deserve to receive a higher rating than what has been assessed.
 
Also, you should stop comparing previous years' scores to this year's score.  That won't help your case, since each year is evaluated in isolation, as has already been pointed out in this thread.

And I would suggest that you also do not keep bringing up your (perceived) bias against your current supervisor.  Previously it was his mother tongue, now you are mentioning his lack of experience and recent promotion.  Those are not factors you could or should be bringing up at work as you try to get this resolved.  Maybe you haven't, but the fact that you keep brining them in this forum has me concerned.

I have dealt with these things, as a CO, and trust me, these kinds of allegations will only serve to weaken your case.  If your supervisor has faults, his/her supervisor, and maybe even the CO, should be and likely are aware of them.
 
MARS said:
Also, you should stop comparing previous years' scores to this year's score.  That won't help your case, since each year is evaluated in isolation, as has already been pointed out in this thread.

And I would suggest that you also do not keep bringing up your (perceived) bias against your current supervisor.  Previously it was his mother tongue, now you are mentioning his lack of experience and recent promotion.  Those are not factors you could or should be bringing up at work as you try to get this resolved.  Maybe you haven't, but the fact that you keep brining them in this forum has me concerned.

I have dealt with these things, as a CO, and trust me, these kinds of allegations will only serve to weaken your case.  If your supervisor has faults, his/her supervisor, and maybe even the CO, should be and likely are aware of them.

Thanks for your input, much appreciated....and NO I have not verbally brought up his mother tongue or experience in conversations thus far. However, It's a challenge am facing when I deal with him, with his trying to get an understand of what is being said / written.

He is completely out to lunch with his assessment of the AF 1-4 points, and those are my main bone of contention. He also brought my personal life (divorce) into the equation when briefed my on the PER...like WTH? He doesn't even know the whole story of this old news from a couple of years ago, and for him to latch on to it
 
opcougar said:
How is everyone today, hope your day was fun and eventful?

***Update to this saga, and your infinite wisdom (those that have been in and around longer than I have) is needed once again....

It looks like my file landed on the CO's desk this morning. So during the latter part of the day, I received a correspondence from the said supervisor asking for the latest post grad module I did in the past FY, and "what do I think my PER score should be" from the status quo?

To refresh you memory folks....here is my previous PER score from the previous supervisor (experienced and came up thru the ranks) with me doing the same job:

Section 4: Performance

AF 1-4 (ES)
AF 5 (M)
AF 6 - 11 (ES)
AF 12-13 (M)
AF 14 (ES)
AF 15 - 16 (M)

Section 5: Potential

1. AA
2. O
3. AA
4. AA
5. AA
6. O

Current supervisor (also came up thru the ranks, but promoted last APS), which is what has led to this grievance process has me at this:

Section 4: Performance

AF 1-4 (S)
AF 9 (S)
AF 13 (S)
AF 15-16 (ES)

Section 5

All the same as above bar Dedication reduced to (AA)

My question to everyone....how should I approach the question posed to me above and what I have provided here, what do you think at a minimum should be the score? I have already submitted substantiated examples for AF 1-4 to show that I did more than last year and that perhaps a couple of AF should stay the same or move to the right (not left)

Cheers

Looking at your posting history I think that you and your supervisor are likely a part of the CNE Branch like I am...  As such I wanted to give you my $.02 for whatever it is worth.  Having worked in a couple of joint billets with both CELE and SIGS supervisors and subordinates i can honestly say that both sides of the Branch score PERs in a similar manner with the SIGS assigning slightly higher scores due to their Capt - Maj promotion cutoff line being higher than CELE.

On both the Army and Air Force sides of the Branch the score you were assigned (as a 3rd PER as a Captain) indicates that your supervisor found your performance to be underwhelming and was sending you a message to reflect that.  WRT your previous year's PER, I would personally frame it in a single sentence as " Competent with some room to grow."

If I was you I would take some time to seriously ponder why your supervisor gave you the initial score that he did.  The score that was assigned to you, to me at least, sends a message that is not likely explained away by a language barrier of your supervisor being newly promoted.  When the unit rankings were done, other supervisors in the unit, some of whom were there longer than your supervisor and likely recalled your last year's PER, saw the new PER.  I've personally questioned other supervisors when they assigned PER scores to their mbrs that were substantially lower than previous year.  The vast majority of time the mbr's supervisor wold bring up specific examples of the mbr "stepping in it"which caused the drop in score.

 
D3 said:
When the unit rankings were done, other supervisors in the unit, some of whom were there longer than your supervisor and likely recalled your last year's PER, saw the new PER.  I've personally questioned other supervisors when they assigned PER scores to their mbrs that were substantially lower than previous year.  The vast majority of time the mbr's supervisor wold bring up specific examples of the mbr "stepping in it"which caused the drop in score.

Good point and that is something that I think is wrong and not conducive to the PER system at the local level.

A supervisor should write the PER based on their own observations and send it up through the CoC and let it rest on it's laurels.  Supervisors aren't present during National Level Boards, so why should they be present during local level boards?

I ran local level PER Boards (Base level) for my occupation some years ago and "excluded" supervisors from the process.  They balked at this but my response was "Assess them based on the performance that you observed."  They didn't have to be there to support their people, the PER submitted by them was "their representation". This isn't going to be a "Pick a F..k conference".

At the end of the day, there were no complaints, there were no hard feelings and being the Chairperson, if I saw something "not quite right", I could address it.
 
opcougar,

Reading your history, you seem to do a lot of "extracurricular" courses and training and you seem to "push" to get promoted.  If you are genuinly interested and are doing them for your real interest, good for you...

But in my experience, it is mostly people that are pushing to get promoted that do this. And generally, that coveted promotion doesn't happen.  What you should concentrate on as a young Captain is your tactical abilities and doing what's right (not always what the system says is right) for the tactical level, rather than concentrating on your "officer development" (it is called that but the real OD happens at the tactical units, IMO)  If your superiors see potential in you, the rest will fall in place and you'll be put in a position where the boxes will be ticked. 

This advice was given to me early in my Officer career by a CO and has worked out great so far. 
 
opcougar said:
Thanks for your input, much appreciated....and NO I have not verbally brought up his mother tongue or experience in conversations thus far. However, It's a challenge am facing when I deal with him, with his trying to get an understand of what is being said / written.

He is completely out to lunch with his assessment of the AF 1-4 points, and those are my main bone of contention. He also brought my personal life (divorce) into the equation when briefed my on the PER...like WTH? He doesn't even know the whole story of this old news from a couple of years ago, and for him to latch on to it

I hear and sympathize with everything you are saying.  Just want you to keep that separate from your formal submission to get this resolved.  Since you are already getting a cold shoulder, just stick to the proven facts in your submission to ensure it reads as objective vice subjective.  Don't want them to maybe see you as whining.  :)
 
MedCorps said:
Do not ever forget, however, that officership is a social sport. 

MC

So sad, but true.  :(

Sugar coating, kissing ass and the "I'll scratch your back, if..." were never qualities I have seen as valuable to the CAF, in Os or NCMs.

I guess I am just naive and don't get the "big picture".  :dunno:
 
As someone that has won a Grievance, (all the way to FA)

I started out with a small memo, stating what I thought was wrong, why I thought it was wrong, had a meeting with the OC, and one was moved. I was also threatened saying "We can charge you for this." I was promoted and posted, IDGAF, what had happened was wrong, I was marked down so others may be brought up, and personal conflict. The OC moved one of my bullets. He said, I realise this is rush for you (informed them of my intent to grieve, and 12 hours later, uncompleted memo I was in front of the OC), but you take it up one more step then you will be good to go. Meaning take it to the IA of the CO.

So with more time and already at my new posting I hammered it out, completed the memo, at that point told by my at the time current AO said that the Greivance Analyst will get in contact with my former supervisors, and gather information from them as so it is not biased. Upon a phone call from the GA, he had in fact confirmed that.

Several months pass, I receive notice that it did not pass and it was not approved. I search the file for the information from previous supervisors and staff saying "Member should of scored higher and this is where." Previous is a bad word to use, as they all had been my supervisor at some point during the reporting period, and were just not available at the time of the Boards to "fight" and or be like " hold up thats not right"

Needless to say, the GA did not contact anyone except the old troop WO to confirm that I infact did Grieve.

I said eff this, this is going all the way up. So once again, I added to the memo, receiving emails from previous supervisors, that stated exactly what I was fighting for the whole time.

Regardless of what the member writing it thought and trying playing puppet master using the buddy buddy system, my PER was fixed.

1. Gather all pertinent information yourself
2. They will try to bully you
3. Get in touch with previous supervisors,
4. It takes time, it took me three years once the  FA said " he has substantiation, give him this"
5. Ensure you state how and why your being affected from how you were wronged.

It is worth it in the end, especially career wise, short term yes, long term for sure yes. If you get promoted sooner and are benefiting with more money, improving quality of life, thats how it affects you personally, not "I didnt like it so here is a 30 page memo on why"
 
I am going to go off an a tangent here.

I seem to be reading about way too much animosity on both sides when filing a grievance.  As a union steward for many years I always give this advice,
" A grievance should never about a person nor should it be personal. It is simply that, you think you're correct while management [higher rank in military case] thinks they are correct, and it will be up to someone not involved in the situation to decide who is actually correct."

Folks, if you're on either side of a grievance then I think this advice would serve you well...............


EDIT:  Added a couple of 'shoulds' because I know it does happen, even though that is wrong.  Bad stewardship IMO 
 
The new flavour of the week is "succession planning".  If you are not seen as a rockstar that will make Col or higher, they may be making room for the persons the CoC sees as capable of succeeding at those lofty heights, and they need to get passed you asap.    The succession planning has also knocked people down a peg, which in most cases probably means they stay stagnet, while the persons that are seen as having higher potential are shoehorned though the ranks.
PuckChaser said:
You mean not every officer can be the CDS?! Blasphamy.

But who exactly decides this and what exact metrics are they using?

By no means would I think a 20 year-old 2Lt should be "career progressed" to be in line to be the CDS in 2040.  However, succession planning (IMO, at least) is far from transparent and does not involve the member's desires and clearly-stated objectives for getting to the next level.

Every level has so many people who want to remain stagnant; they're comfortable being a Cpl or Sgt or Capt or whatever.  Every level also has so many people who want to progress to the next rank and have higher aspirations.  If a member knows and expresses their desire to be the Army Commander/the CDS/CMP/VCDS/whatever else, then how are we tracking that desire?
 
Back
Top