ARCHIVED - Canadian Forces Grievance Board

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

SECTION I – OVERVIEW

 

Chairperson's Message

I am pleased to submit the Canadian Forces Grievance Board's (CFGB) seventh Departmental Performance Report for the period ending March 31, 2008.

After eight years in operation, the CFGB has reached a high level of maturity as a key organization in military complaint resolution. Its significant contribution to the Canadian Forces grievance system is now widely recognized and its credibility with grievors and the senior leadership of the Canadian Forces well established. On the management side, the Board’s commitment to excellence was validated by two audits conducted in 2007. Both the Office of the Auditor General and the Public Service Commission confirmed the CFGB’s effective internal management practices in a number of key areas.

Still, the CFGB keeps seeking ways to improve. Recently, we conducted an in-depth review of our internal processes and took steps to make modifications in order to achieve greater operational efficiency, while maintaining the high quality of our analysis and Findings and Recommendations.

The Board has been in discussion with Canadian Forces authorities regarding an expansion of our mandate. Currently, regulations restrict us to certain subject matters, which effectively means we only see approximately 40% of grievances at the Final Authority level. An expanded mandate would mean every grievance at the Final Authority level would have the benefit of an independent, external review and, at the same time, have access to the Board’s considerable knowledge and unique in-house expertise. It is our strong belief that an expanded mandate will bolster confidence in the Canadian Forces grievance system as a whole.

While reviewing grievances, we gather a great deal of information of interest to the Canadian Forces. Complaints can serve as indicators of broader or systemic issues and can provide insight into current or future challenges. This information can be valuable for preventing problems and for improving Canadian Forces policies and procedures. The Board is now looking into ways to package this useful information and intends to share it with decision makers within the Canadian Forces.

The Board will continue to build on its experience and knowledge. I am confident it will continue to make progress towards ensuring an efficient and fair grievance process system is available to all Canadian Forces members.

 

Management Representation Statement

I submit for tabling in Parliament, the 2007-2008 Departmental Performance Report for the Canadian Forces Grievance Board.

This document has been prepared based on the reporting principles contained in the Guide for the Preparation of Part III of the 2007-2008 Estimates: Reports on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Reports:

 

___________________________

Name:	Jim Price
Title:	Acting Chairperson

 

Summary Information

The Grievance Context –

The concept of military personnel having the right to grieve and receive redress is not new. Canada’s introduction, in the year 2000, of an extra-military component to the Canadian Forces grievance system represented a major innovation in the handling of military grievances. That innovation was the creation of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board.

As stipulated in the National Defence Act (NDA) and Chapter 7.12 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O), the Board’s mandate is to review all military grievances referred to it by the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS). Following its review, the Board submits its Findings and Recommendations (F&Rs) to the CDS, simultaneously forwarding a copy to the grievor. It is the CDS, however, who is the final adjudicator on the grievance.

Chapter 7.12 of the QR&O sets out the types of grievances that can be referred to the Board. Specifically:

Section 29.12 of the NDA stipulates that the CDS may also refer any other grievance to the Board.

Financial Resources ($000's)

2007-08
Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
$6,429.0	$6,775.6	$6,222.0

Human Resources *

2007-08
Planned	Actual	Difference
46	42	4

* Includes Board Members appointed by Governor in Council.

 

Departmental Priorities

Name	Type	Performance Status
1. Operational performance	Ongoing	Successfully met
2. External Communications	Ongoing	Successfully met
3. Improving the Canadian Forces Grievance System	New	Successfully met

 

Program Activities by Strategic Outcome

	Expected Results	Performance Status	2007-08		Contribution to the following priority
			Planned Spending	Actual Spending
Strategic Outcome: Findings and Recommendations of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board are implemented and lead to improved conditions of service for members of the Canadian Forces.
Program Activity: Review of Canadian Forces grievances referred by the Chief of the Defence Staff	A steady state of operations in which grievance reviews are completed on average within six months of receipt. Consistent high quality of analysis, Findings and Recommendations. Stakeholders recognize the value added of the Board’s Findings and Recommendations. A grievance review process that eliminates any duplication of effort as between the Board and the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DGCFGA). An efficient grievance review process. All grievances from members of the Canadian Forces benefit from a review by an independent Board.	Successfully met	3,348.0	3,325.2	Priorities #1, #2 and #3.
Program Activity: Internal Services	Sound internal management practices in accordance with the Management Accountability Framework (MAF) and reflected in the Board’s Management, Resources and Results Structure (MRRS) and Performance Measurement Framework.	Exceeded expectations	3,081.0	2,896.8	Priorities #1, #2 and #3.

 

Departmental Performance

Context and Operating Environment

During the period covered by this report, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board (CFGB) made significant progress in its efforts to contribute to the transparency and the efficiency of the grievance system for Canadian Forces members. The Board agreed to participate in a pilot project with the Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (a group within National Defence) to test a new process with the objective of reducing the elapsed time and minimizing the duplication of analysis. As well, during the same period, the Board was the subject of two audits; the Auditor General conducted performance audits on three small entities, one of which was the Board; and an audit by the Public Service Commission. As well the Board took part, for the first time, in the Round V Management Accountability Framework (MAF) assessment.

The evolution of the grievance process

A pilot project to test a new process between the Board and the Grievance Authority within DND was undertaken. Under the new process, the Board added two steps: once the case analysis is completed, both the Grievance Authority and the grievor are provided with the analysis report for comments and to give the grievor an opportunity to make representations for the Board’s consideration prior to the issuance of its Findings and Recommendations.

Timeliness of the review

Previously, the Board had established an average timeline of six months to complete a grievance. This standard did not include the additional time needed for the completion of the two steps introduced under the new process. As part of monitoring the new process, the Board had considered adjusting its six-month standard to take into consideration the time necessary to completing the new process’ two additional steps; instead it made the new steps concurrent to other steps in its review and the revised process was adopted.

Table 1 shows the length of time the Board took, on average, to complete cases, categorized by the year in which they were received.

Table 1

Year Referred to CFGB	# Cases Received	# Cases Completed	Less than 6 months	6 months to 1 year	More than 1 year
2000	179	179	7.3%	9.5%	83.2%
2001	105	105	9.5%	24.8%	65.7%
2002	205	205	6.8%	13.7%	79.5%
2003	146	146	6.2%	11.6%	82.2%
2004	102	101	5.9%	27.7%	66.3%
2005	80	80	10.0%	22.5%	67.5%
2006	63	61	49.2%	27.9%	23.0%
2007	165	66	50.0%	50.0%	0.0%

Data as of March 31, 2008

Table 2 outlines the distribution by outcomes of the 103 cases for which the Board rendered Findings and Recommendations in 2007-2008.

Table 2

Grievance Categories	Upheld	Partially Upheld	Withdrawn due to CF Informal Resolution	Withdrawn	Denied	No Standing*	Total
Financial	9	4	4	4	22		43
General	4	4	2	1	12		23
Harassment-Discrimination	3	4		1	2		13
Release	1	1	2	4	15	1	24
Total	17	13	8	10	54	1	103
* No standing – The Party does not have the right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right (e.g. a non-member of the CF).

The Board hopes to see an increase in informal resolutions and withdrawals before its Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the CDS for a decision. The increase of such informal resolutions and/or withdrawals early in the process appears to be one of the benefits of the new, more transparent process.

 

Expanded mandate – Ensuring fairness for all

The application of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders (QR&O), article 7.12 results in approximately 40 percent of the grievances at the Final Authority (FA) level being reviewed by the Board, while the DGCFGA is responsible for the remainder.

As shown in Figure 1, the DGCFGA provides support to the CDS as the FA and has also been delegated the authority to act as decision-maker in most of the grievances not mandatorily referred to the CFGB pursuant to Section 29 of the National Defence Act (NDA) and article 7.12 of the QR&O.

As previously mentioned, the CFGB and DGCFGA mutually agreed to pilot a new process with a view to enhancing the overall efficiency of the CF grievance system. In June 2007, the trial process was expanded to include all grievances received by the CFGB and officially became the new process. Furthermore, the Chief of the Defence Staff referred to the CFGB a number of discretionary files to assess its capacity to review files of a type not ordinarily referred to the Board (for example, grievances involving personal evaluation reports). To date data shows that the time it takes to review those types of cases is no longer than the types mandatorily referred to the Board.

Having the Board review every file would ensure that all grievances are subject to the same process and that all CF members who wish to grieve are provided with equal access to an external review. The Board firmly believes that an expansion of its mandate would bolster confidence in the CF grievance system.

Lessons Learned

As a result of the disclosure of the analysis report, both the grievor and the CF benefit from a more transparent process and gain a better understanding of the issues surrounding the grievance. This process has facilitated an increase in informal resolutions by the CF and withdrawals of grievances much earlier in the process than was previously the case.

Several factors outside the Board’s control can affect the time taken to review a grievance, including timeliness with which a grievance is referred to the Board, its complexity, delays in obtaining relevant information, and in some instances, the number of Board Members available to review grievances.

 

Communications Initiatives

Raising awareness and having direct contact with the men and women of the CF and other stakeholders are integral to fulfilling the Board’s mandate. Based on this understanding, outreach activities continued to be an important part of the Board’s communication initiatives in 2007. Throughout the year, Board members and senior management visited military bases and made presentations to groups of key stakeholders. These meetings and presentations further highlighted the Board’s role within the CF grievance process, its decisions and its accomplishments – helping to strengthen confidence in the work of the Board and in the CF administrative justice system as a whole.

Throughout the year, the Board regularly updated its Website adding new information and case summaries. The Board’s Website is a key element to its external two-way communications strategy designed to share information with CF members and stakeholders, while gauging their perceptions and expectations.

As well, in 2007, the Board continued to produce its eBulletin electronic newsletter available through subscription. The newsletter highlights current and relevant cases reviewed by the Board. It describes the Board’s Findings and Recommendations and the CDS’ final decision for each case. It also provides updates on key grievance statistics and Board activities. The eBulletin is a useful vehicle for informing CF members of the impact of the Board’s work and on any systemic changes arising from grievance outcomes.

Anyone who would like to receive the eBulletin can subscribe through the Board’s Website: http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca

 

Audit results reveal sound practices at the Board

The Board works to ensure sound internal management practices and rigorous planning of human and financial resources. Two external audits in 2007 credited the Board with good performance in a number of measures related to important areas.

Report from the Office of the Auditor General

In 2007, the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) reported that the CFGB applied good management and control practices in the spending of public funds. The Auditor General conducted performance audits on three small entities and reported the results in Chapter 2 of the October 2007 Report of the Auditor General.

The report stated that “the Board is managing well in all six areas covered by the audit”, which included acquisition cards, contracting, executive travel, executive compensation, hospitality and selected areas of human resources management. The audit covered the period from April 1, 2004 to September 30, 2006. Overall, the OAG was satisfied with the findings and, as such, made no recommendations.

Audit from the Public Service Commission

In October 2007, the Public Service Commission (PSC) reported overall satisfaction with the Board’s staffing activities following an audit covering the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006.

The PSC audit found that “the Board had an appropriate framework, systems and practices in place to manage its staffing activities.” It also concluded that all advertised appointment processes complied with the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), other governing authorities and policies and the instrument of delegation signed by the PSC.

The PSC did, however, express concerns about five non-advertised appointment processes which it reviewed, saying they did not comply with the policy requirement for a written rationale. The Chairperson of the Board is committed to addressing the issues raised in the audit.

 

Round V Assessment Management Accountability Framework (MAF)

The Management Accountability Framework (MAF) summarizes the management conditions that need to be in place to ensure that government is well-managed.

This is the first time the Treasury Board Portfolio has undertaken a MAF assessment of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board. The following is an overview of the assessment:

Lessons Learned

The Board is ever mindful that careful planning of its resources goes a long way towards ensuring that the quality of its work is not compromised. This includes the continuity and renewal of its specialized workforce in keeping with changes flowing from the Public Service Modernization Act.

The Board will also continue to cultivate its management practices using the Government’s own blueprint for sound management, the Management Accountability Framework.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page