Complaint Resolution

• Revised Arrangement Following Submission of a Redress of Grievance - Tri-Service Procedures
• Legislative Basis
  
• Initial Steps
  
• Assistance in the Preparation of a ROG
  
• Submission of a ROG
  
• Complaint against a Decision or Action of a CO
  
• Unit Level Investigation
  
• Service Chief/CDF Review
  
• Review by DFO
• Contacts

Revised Arrangements Following Submission of a Redress of Grievance - Tri-Service Procedures

DEFGRAM No 234/2008 Amendments to Defence Force Regulations 1952 and changes to the redress of grievance process. DEFGRAM 234/2008 compliments DEFGRAM 317/2006

DEFGRAM No 317/2006 (ROG Initial Review Proforma) issued 26 June 2006, provides new arrangements for ROG procedures, which will be incorporated into a revised version of Defence Instruction (General) Personnel 34-1 - Redress of Grievance - Tri-Service Procedures.

Legislative Basis

Defence Force Regulations 1952 , Part 15 allows an ADF member who considers that a decision, act or omission in relation to his or her service is adverse or detrimental to him or her and is capable of being redressed by Defence may submit a Redress of Grievance.  There are some exclusions to the redress of grienvacne process (see below) to the ROG must be submitted to the member’s  Commanding Officer (CO). The CO is required to inquire into the complaint as soon as reasonably practicable.

Departmental policy is contained in Defence Instruction (General) Personnel 34-1- Redress of Grievance - Tri-Service Procedures .

The following complaints are outside the ROG system and cannot be accepted:

• complaints about the ROG process;
• actions that initiate an administrative process, such as a notice to show cause;
• termination notices (but no decisions to terminate or discharge a member);
• decisions to give or not to give a particular assessment, grade or rating as the result of a performance assessment;
• complaints subject to or regarding a decision, judgement or order made by a civil court or tribunal, a Service tribunal or the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Tribunal;
• complaints about a determination made in respect of a liability to the Commonwealth made under section 42 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997; for example, complaints about recovery of money for loss of or damage to Commonwealth property through negligence or gross negligence;
• anonymous complaints;
• complaints signed by or on behalf of two or more members; and
• complaints that are lodged when complainants are not members of the ADF.

Initial steps

Initially, members should consider other avenues to the ROG process to resolve their complaint by using their chain of command and normal administrative processes. For example a complaint about workplace harassment should be pursued under the provisions of DI(G) PERS 35-3 Management and Reporting of Unacceptable Behaviour before a ROG is submitted.

Assistance in the preparation of a ROG

A member may request assistance when drafting a complaint. Unless this assistance is specifically of a legal nature, the CO will nominate a suitably qualified member from within the unit to provide assistance to the complainant.

Members may also request assistance from a legal officer in the preparation of a ROG. Requests are to be made through the member's unit and are to be approved by the member's CO. The role of a legal officer is to provide specialist counselling and advice to the member concerning the preparation of the ROG. The legal officer is not to conduct inquiries or negotiations on behalf of the member, nor is the legal officer to submit the complaint on behalf of the member under the legal officer's signature. Notwithstanding the provision of legal assistance, or the member's decision to engage a civilian lawyer, COs and investigating officers are not required to correspond directly with such persons and may elect to deal only with the member in relation to matters pertaining to a ROG.

Submission of a ROG

A ROG is to be submitted in writing to the member's CO. The submission should clearly state the grounds for complaint and the redress sought. The complaint should, where possible, be supported by evidence and should include any relevant supporting documentation. While there is no absolute timeframe for the submission of a complaint, it should be submitted as soon as practicable after the event(s) that gave rise to the complaint.

Complaints must be submitted within 6 months of the decision, act or omission, unless there are exceptional circumstances, except on matters involving termination decisions. Complaints about termination decisions must be submitted within 14 days from receiving the decision, or from which the member could reasonably be expected to have known about the decision. There is no exception to this time limit.

Complaint against a decision or action of a CO

Where a member complains about a decision of their CO, the member is to submit the ROG to the CO for initial resolution. This allows the CO to reconsider the decision and, possibly, grant the redress sought. Where a CO declines to grant the redress sought, the CO is to immediately pass the ROG to the next superior officer in the chain of command for inquiry and resolution. In cases where a complainant alleges harassment or other improper behaviour on the part of the CO, the member may choose to submit the ROG to the CO's superior in the first instance. (Such complaints would normally be dealt with under the provisions of DI(G) PERS 35-3 Management and Reporting of Unacceptable Behaviour )

Unit Level Investigation

A CO is required to acknowledge receipt of a ROG in writing, inquire into the complaint, make a decision on whether the member has grounds for complaint and resolve the matter, if it is within the CO's authority. The CO will conduct a Quick Assessment into the complaint and seek advice on his or her proposed course of action from CR.

Notwithstanding the use of the term ’inquire’, in cases where administrative resolution has been attempted, all that may be required to enable the CO to make an informed decision on the complaint is a review of the documentation that has already been assembled. In other cases, further inquiries may be necessary.

Where further inquiry of a complaint is required, these inquiries are to be conducted in accordance with ADFP 06.1.4 Administrative Inquiries Manual. The purpose of administrative inquiries is to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding an incident or situation so that an informed decision may be taken about the action required, including, where appropriate, action to avoid a recurrence.

In the case of ROGs, the most common types of inquiry will be a routine inquiry under ADFP 06.1.4 and an investigating officer inquiry under the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations (D(I)R). An investigating officer inquiry under D(I)R should only be initiated where the complaint raises serious and/or complex matters, or may adversely affect members other than the complainant. Guidance on the conduct of a routine inquiry and an investigating officer inquiry is contained in chapters 4 and 5 respectively of the ADFP 06.1.4 .

The CO is to advise the member in writing of the decision on the ROG. A complainant is required to advise the CO in writing whether or not they accept the CO's decision in respect of a ROG. Where a complainant accepts the decision of a CO, the ROG is considered to be finalised. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with a CO's decision in respect of a ROG, the complainant may request that the ROG be referred to the Service Chief for review.

Members are to be advised in writing every 60 days on the status of the investigation of a ROG. While a complaint is being inquired into at unit level, the responsibility for providing these progress reports rests with the member's CO.

Service Chief/CDF Review

If not satisfied with the decision of their CO, the member may request through their CO that the complaint be referred to the appropriate Service Chief (or delegate) for determination. The ROG must be referred to the Service Chief with in 28 days for receiving the CO’s decision unless there are exceptional circumstances, except on matters involving termination decisions. The referral of a complaint to the Service Chief about a termination decision must be made within 14 days from receiving the CO’s decision, or from which the member could reasonably be expected to have known about the decision. There is no exception to this time limit.  The ROG will be forwarded direct to CR by unit administrative staff.

On receipt of a ROG at CR, the complaint will be acknowledged and allocated a priority. Complaints against proposed executive action, such as discharge, are usually afforded the highest priority.  A case officer will be appointed at the first available opportunity to review the substance of the complaint. The case officer will then prepare a brief for consideration and determination by the appropriate Service Chief (or his delegate). CR is responsible for providing 60 day updates on ROGs referred to the Service Chief or CDF. For members below the rank of Warrant Officer, review by the Service Chief represents the final step in the internal ROG process. If dissatisfied with the decision of the Service Chief, these members may refer their complaint to the Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO) with a request that the matter be reviewed.

Regulation 87 of Defence Force Regulations provides that an officer, chief petty officer, warrant officer, flight sergeant or above who is not satisfied with the outcome of a review of a ROG by a Service Chief (or delegate) may refer the matter to CDF.. A ROG must be referred to the CDF with in 28 days for receiving the Service Chief’s decision unless there are exceptional circumstances, except on matters involving termination decisions. The referral of a complaint to the CDF about a termination decision must be made within 14 days from receiving the Service Chief’s decision, or from which the member could reasonably be expected to have known about the decision. There is no exception to this time limit.

A request to refer a ROG to CDF should be made in writing to the Director of CR. In reviewing the ROG, CDF will note the previous investigations into the matter and the complainant's reasons for referral. The matter will not normally be the subject of a fresh investigation. Complainants should also note that certain powers reside solely with the Service Chiefs, eg, in relation to terminations of appointment or discharge. In these cases, if CDF considers that the complaint has merit, he is not able to provide the redress sought and his influence would be confined to bringing his concerns to the attention of a Service Chief. Officers and warrant officers may refer their complaint to the DFO review if dissatisfied with CDF's decision.

Review by DFO

The DFO investigates complaints from members of the ADF relating to, or arising from, past or present service. A member can ask the DFO to investigate any administrative action taken by the ADF, or other Commonwealth agency, that relates to service in the ADF and which is troubling to the member or the member's family.

The DFO will not normally investigate a complaint while it is being considered by a Minister, the ADF, another Commonwealth agency, a court, or a tribunal or review body, like the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The DFO can investigate complaints about unreasonable delays in the ROG system, or complaints from members who have not been informed about the progress of their complaints every 60 days.

A serving member with a complaint about a matter affecting their service is normally expected to seek to resolve the complaint through established Service channels, including the ROG system, before approaching the DFO. A member who is not satisfied with the outcome of a ROG that has been referred to the Service Chief, or, in the case of officers and warrant officers, to CDF, may ask the DFO to review the complaint.

Contacts