# 2012-016 Careers, Cadet Instructor Cadre (CIC), Reserve Force

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–05–29

The grievor, an officer in the Canadian Forces Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service (COATS), alleged that he was wrongly denied gainful employment by the Commanding Officer (CO) of the Regional Cadet Support Unit (RCSU) after he had raised a complaint regarding the process employed to fill the vacant CO’s position at his former Cadet unit. As redress, the grievor sought to be paid for an equivalent position from April 2010 until his release date in 2011.

There was no initial authority (IA) decision rendered within the time allotted as the grievor refused to grant an extension. However, a draft decision letter, prepared by IA staff, explained that it was incumbent on the individual to monitor possible job opportunities and to apply if interested. It also concluded that there was no convincing evidence that the grievor actively sought employment other than one specific position and, as a result, recommended that the grievance be denied.

The Board first examined the policy that applied to the grievor, a COATS officer being held on the RCSU Cadet Instructor Supplementary Staff list, and noted that the grievor would have been required to express his availability to the RCSU, indicating that he was seeking employment. The RCSU would then determine if there were any suitable positions for the grievor.

Next, the Board considered whether the grievor made his availability known to the RCSU. A summary investigation (SI), ordered by the CO RCSU to examine the grievor’s complaint about hiring practices, reported that the grievor had made it known, through an email, that he was interested in being employed within a certain Cadet unit. The Board also found evidence of a specific request from the grievor for one particular position and concluded that the grievor had informed the RCSU of his desire for gainful employment in any available position at a Cadet unit.

Finally, the Board considered whether the RCSU response to the grievor’s request for employment was appropriate. The Board noted that, although some positions appeared to be available, the RCSU staff did not advise the grievor that there were vacant positions for which he may qualify. On the contrary, the CO RCSU confirmed that he would not entertain the grievor’s request for employment until such time as his initial hiring practices complaint had been thoroughly examined by the SI. The CO RCSU reiterated this decision a number of times, notwithstanding that the grievor’s performance and leadership were not the stated objects of the investigation.

The Board found that through his actions or lack thereof, the CO RCSU demonstrated that he did not wish to employ the grievor prior to the conclusion of the SI, thereby precluding him from any possibility of employment. However, since there can be no guarantee that the grievor would have secured employment had the CO RCSU notified him of the available positions within other units, the Board was unable to conclude with certainty that the grievor was denied actual employment.

The Board was of the view that if the CO RCSU had concerns about employing the grievor and those concerns were not the subject of the SI, then the CO should have advised the grievor as early as possible of that fact. For the CO to refuse his assistance in response to the grievor’s requests for employment pending completion of the SI was, in the Board’s opinion, unreasonable. Accordingly, the Board found that the grievor was unfairly denied the opportunity for potential employment.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff partially uphold the grievance by acknowledging that the grievor was denied the opportunity for potential employment and by forwarding the grievor’s request for redress, with his support, to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation for review.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–01–30

The FA partially agreed with the Board's recommendation to uphold the grievance in part and found that the grievor's chain of command did not provide him with a list of available positions which obstructed his ability to be employed elsewhere. The FA found that the grievor held some responsability for the climate at his unit at that time. The FA did not forward the grievance to DCCL with its support, stating that the CDS is not the competent jurisdiction for granting financial compensation and if the grievor wished to pursue this avenue, he may submit a claim to DCCL.