# 2011-134 Careers, Abuse of Authority, Class B Reserve Service, Reserve Force, Respect of Procedures/Policies

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–03–13

The grievor was employed on Class B Reserve Service (Cl B svc) outside of his unit. He had advised his career manager (CM) and the unit Commanding Officer (CO) that he was interested in Cl B svc with the unit once his current Cl B svc ran out and in either the Executive Officer (XO) or CO position. The CO acknowledged the grievor’s interest but explained that another officer was his first choice to replace him as CO and that he planned to employ that other officer in the Cl B Training Officer (TrgO) position to groom him to be the next CO. The CO included the grievor in his Succession Plan as an external candidate for CO but considered it unlikely that the grievor would give up his Cl B svc for the Class A (Cl A) position. The CO also stated that the grievor would need to be re-assimilated into the unit in another position prior to being appointed as the CO.

The incumbent in the Trg O position left the position early and the CM filled it with the CO’s preferred candidate without the early availability being advertised.

Some 33 months after the Trg O position had been filled, the grievor submitted his grievance arguing that he had been denied an opportunity to apply because it had not been advertised in accordance with policy. The grievor indicated that he had considered submitting a grievance at the time the position was filled by the CO’s preferred candidate, but explained that he did not have enough supporting evidence until later when he researched the Succession Planning issue.

The grievor argued that the results of the CO Selection Board might have been different had the CO submitted an honest evaluation of him. The grievor suggested that the CO had been deceptive and had violated procedural fairness because he had not been involved with assessing the grievor’s performance for the previous three years.

As redress, the grievor requested that Cl B employment opportunities be advertised in accordance with policy, that a Board of Inquiry (BOI) be conducted into Naval Reserve Human Resources and fiscal management, that the Trg O position be re-advertised, and that a statement be issued acknowledging the CO’s inaccurate assessment of the grievor.

The initial authority (IA), the Commander Naval Reserve, granted partial redress. He agreed that a system would be put in place to ensure advertisement of positions that are vacated early, that the process for considering external CO candidates would be reviewed, and that the grievor’s “Availability Factor” would be severed from the CO Selection Board report.

The Board found that the issue of the Trg O position was submitted outside the grievance time limit. Although no reasons were given by the IA, the Board concluded that the IA must have accepted the issue in the interests of justice. The Board noted that the final authority (FA) could still decide to reject this issue on the basis of time.

With respect to the merits of the issues, the Board found that on a balance of probabilities, the grievor was duly considered for the Trg O position and suffered no injustice by the selection of another candidate. The Board also found that the grievor was properly considered for the position of CO and suffered no injustice.

The Board agreed with the redress granted by the IA and recommended that the FA deny the remainder of the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–07–05

The FA agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation to deny the grievance.