There are grievances, and then there are special grievances

I've received some interesting feedback on my last blog entry, describing Richard Warman's new job as a "Director of Special Grievances -- Enquiries and Investigations" at the Department of National Defence. Some feedback was posted directly to my comments section, and some has come to my e-mail. I expect a more, now that CF chat sites like Army.ca have taken note.

Some soldiers have noted that much of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board's mandate is mundane -- as you can see by this list, they deal with everything from child care to clothing allowances to "meal allowances during overseas travel". It's a clearing house for any dispute, it seems, no matter how bland or, sometimes, trivial.

I have no reason to believe that the DND is any worse than other government departments in dealing with the minutiae of a bureaucracy. But that's not what I'm interested in learning more about.

I want to know more about "Special Grievances" -- the sort that Richard Warman spends his time on.

Because amongst the list of potential issues are a few that seem to call out his name, from "harassment" to "discrimination". Even "Canadian Human Rights Commission" is listed. I'm sure that even Warman couldn't turn a dispute over pension benefits into an opportunity for "maximum disruption". But I'm equally sure that the Special Grievances Directorate doesn't waste its time on such matters.

So keep your e-mails coming. I want to know just how special a Special Grievance has to be before it's given to Warman for his special treatment.

If Warman is indeed using his "maximum disruption" approach, the cases I'm looking for are likely going to come from soldiers who have been drummed out of the Canadian Forces, or marginalized within it. Send those stories over in confidence.