ARCHIVED - Canadian Forces Grievance Board - Report

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Section II – Analysis of Program Activities by Strategic Outcome

Strategic Outcome

Figure 3

[Long description: Figure 3 demonstrates the CFGB's Strategic Outcome]

Program Activity

Figure 4

[Long description: Figure 4 demonstrates the CFGB's Program Activity]

Program Activity Description

The Chief of the Defence Staff refers grievances as prescribed under Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces as well as every grievance concerning a decision or an act of the Chief of the Defence Staff in respect of a particular officer or non-commissioned member to the Board for its findings and recommendations. The Board conducts objective and transparent reviews of grievances with due respect to fairness and equity for each member of the Canadian Forces, regardless of rank or position. It ensures that the rights of military personnel are considered fairly throughout the process and that its Board Members act in the best interest of the parties concerned. The findings and recommendations it issues are not only based in law but form precedents that may facilitate change within the Canadian Forces. As an administrative tribunal designed to review grievances, the Board must ensure that its recommendations comply with the law and can be implemented in accordance with its enabling legislation, relevant human rights legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Performance Status Legend

Exceeded: More than 100 per cent of the expected level of performance (as evidenced by the indicator and target or planned activities and outputs) for the expected result identified in the corresponding RPP was achieved during the fiscal year.

Met All: 100 per cent of the expected level of performance (as evidenced by the indicator and target or planned activities and expected outputs) for the expected result identified in the corresponding RPP was achieved during the fiscal year.

Mostly Met: 80 to 99 per cent of the expected level of performance (as evidenced by the indicator and target or planned activities and expected outputs) for the expected result identified in the corresponding RPP was achieved during the fiscal year.

Somewhat Met: 60 to 79 per cent of the expected level of performance (as evidenced by the indicator and target or planned activities and outputs) for the expected result identified in the corresponding RPP was achieved during the fiscal year.

Not Met: Less than 60 per cent of the expected level of performance (as evidenced by the indicator and target or planned activities and outputs) for the expected result identified in the corresponding RPP was achieved during the fiscal year.

2010-11 Financial Resources (thousands)

Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
3,499.0	3,725.9	3,788.8

2010-11 Human Resources (FTEs)

Planned	Actual	Difference
28	21	7

Expected Results	Performance Indicators	Targets	Performance Status
Fair, impartial and transparent findings and recommendations (F&R).	% of survey responses from grievors satisfied with the fairness, impartiality and transparency of the Board's F&Rs.	75% agreement	Mostly met 72% agreed or strongly agreed that they were provided with appropriate disclosure of information. Similarly they are satisfied with equity and transparency, as 60% agreed or strongly agreed that their grievance had been reviewed in a fair and unbiased manner. 74% felt that it was important to have their grievance reviewed by an external organization independent from the Canadian Forces.
Findings and recommendations (F&R) delivered expeditiously.	% of CFGB's grievance process timeline standards met.	Established standards are being met 75% of the time.	Exceeded As of March 31, 2011 of the 2010 cases received, 99% were completed, out of which 90.6% were completed within the 6 months standard.

Performance Summary and Analysis of Program Activity

Fair Impartial and transparent findings and recommendations (F&R)

CFGB's Grievors' Survey - In 2010-11, 44 grievors responded to the Grievors' Survey, an increase of 37.5% over the previous year. The survey found that grievors were generally satisfied with fairness, as 72 % agreed or strongly agreed that they were provided with appropriate disclosure of information. Similarly they are satisfied with equity and transparency, as 60% agreed or strongly agreed that their grievance had been reviewed in a fair and unbiased manner and 74% felt it was important to have their grievance reviewed by an external organization from the CF.

Findings from the Evaluation of the CFGB Review of Military Grievances Program - The evaluation of the Program covered the five-year period from January 2005 to December 2009. Since a survey of the members of the CF was not possible given public opinion restrictions on this population, the evaluation analyzed questions from the "Your Say" survey which is administered annually by the CF. It was concluded that:

Results – There is no clear evidence that confidence levels in the grievance process are increasing, nor is it clear whether the CFGB is having an impact on this confidence. Nonetheless, grievors seem satisfied with the fairness, transparency and equity of the process, although less satisfied with timeliness. The majority of respondents referred to the timeliness of the whole process meaning from the time the grievance was filed within the CF to the time of the CDS Decision on their case.

Supporting Evidence – The "Your Say" survey results suggest that CF members experienced a reduction in confidence levels in the grievance process, especially between fall 2006 and fall 2007. When asked whether "CF members who submit a grievance are likely to obtain justice," on average 39.0% agreed, 37.5% were neutral and 23.5% disagreed prior to fall 2006. However, in fall 2007 those in agreement dropped to 30.4% and those who were neutral rose to 45.0%.

These reduced levels remain constant for the remainder of the evaluation period. This drop in agreement and rise in neutral response between fall 2006 and 2007 is consistent across all questions pertaining to justice and fairness, and raises the question of whether something adverse occurred in that period.

When asked whether "methods for resolving complaints in the CF are fair and unbiased" overall 36.8% agreed and 27.7% disagreed. As with the previous question, there was a notable 7.9% drop in agreement between fall 2006 and fall 2007, but since 2008 agreement has begun to return to previous levels.

Findings and recommendations (F&R) delivered expeditiously

A Timely Review - The Board established a productivity standard of an average of six months to complete the review of a grievance. Refinements implemented in recent years have further streamlined processes and increased efficiency, bringing the average down to 3.2 months for cases received in 2010. This represents an improvement of 67% compared to 2008 (9.6 months), and 47.2% compared to 2009 (6.1 months).

By March 31, 2011, 99% of cases received in 2010 were completed, out of which 90.6% were completed within the 6 months standard.

Figure 5

[Long description: Figure 5 demonstrates the average review timeline by year grievance referred]

NOTE*: Not all cases received in 2010 have been completed to date. These statistics will be ajusted in future reports to include the balance of the cases received in 2010.

Lessons Learned

The progress made by the Board in terms of efficiency validates the measures introduced to streamline the internal review process. One key measure that resulted in significant savings in time is the earlier involvement of Board members in the initial stages of the review process. But also, a knowledgeable and stable workforce has contributed to this increased efficiency, while ensuring that the quality of the Board's work remains at a very high standard.

As a result of these improvements, as of October 2010, and for the first time in its history, the Board did not have in its inventory any active grievances referred to it before 2010. By March 31, 2011, the reviews of all but one case referred to the CFGB in 2010 were completed.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page