# 2012-083 Careers, Class B Reserve Service, Reserve Force, Respect of Procedures/Policies

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–09–28

The Grievor, a Reservist, raised questions about the selection process for a Class B position for which he applied and to which another applicant was appointed without the Grievor being called to an interview. According to him, the principles of transparency and equality applicable to the selection process were not respected. He requested that the candidate’s posting message be withdrawn and that the selection process be reopened to allow him to participate.

The Initial Authority (IA) acknowledged that the process had not been conducted according to the policy, but noted that the Grievor, as well as three other candidates, were later invited to interviews in order to correct the errors committed. The IA explained that, although the Grievor had been deemed capable of performing the duties of the position in question, he was not the best candidate available, and the individual initially appointed remained the right person for the job. The IA added that this decision was based in particular on the fact that the candidate in question was also performing the duties of another position that had been merged with those of the position for which the Grievor had applied. The IA concluded that the Grievor’s complaint was partially addressed by the fact that he had been called to an interview, and denied his request that the candidate’s appointment be rescinded.

The Board noted that, in re-opening the process, the chain of command had provided itself with the means to rectify the mistake and that it could have been possible for another candidate to have been appointed at the conclusion of the interviews. Moreover, in the Board’s opinion, the fact that the Grievor was not chosen does not necessarily mean that the selection process was flawed, and cannot constitute a prejudice per se. However, the Board found that the file contained inconsistencies, contradictions and information leading to the conclusion that re-opening the process was not enough to make up for the original mistakes.

Despite the fact that additional interviews were held, the facts of the case show that the decision to appoint and retain the current occupant of the position had been made for some time and had been final. As a result, the Board concluded that, in this case, the mere fact of meeting with the Grievor during an interview did not rectify the errors that occurred during the initial selection process, and that the chain of command had no intent to possibly offer the position to another candidate at the conclusion of the interviews.

The Board also noted that the Grievor had raised doubts about the legitimacy of merging the duties of two positions and had inquired whether an official establishment change request had been submitted. The Board was surprised to learn that, not only had it ultimately been decided not to proceed with the establishment change but, as of 2013, the two positions would be separated again in order to be staffed with two separate individuals. The Board was of the opinion that this new information supported its conclusion that the selection process had been frivolous from the outset and also tended to hide the fact that the decision taken had in fact been set in stone. According to the Board, this approach was unacceptable and flew in the face of the Chief of Military Personnel Instruction 20/04 which states that the selection process must be fair and equitable.

The Board also pointed out that the Grievor had been denied access to the results of his interview. The Board was of the opinion that since this is personal information about the Grievor, he is entitled to learn his ranking as well as any other personal information gathered during his interview.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) uphold the grievance.

The Board recommended that the CDS order a new competition to be held as early as possible and that the candidate selected at the conclusion of this process be assigned to the position, in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in Instruction 20/04.

The Board recommended that the CDS order that the Grievor’s ranking and pertinent personal information gathered during his interview on 15 November 2011 be communicated to him.

The Board recommended that the CDS order that the present findings and recommendations be communicated to the COs of the Reserve Force Headquarters and the unit in question.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–11–25

The FA partially agreed with the Board's recommendations. The FA concluded that the grievor had been aggrieved because the position he was seeking had been given to another member without going through a fair and equitable selection process; moreover, the grievor's name had not been selected owing to an error committed by the career manager. Like the Board, FA found that the new selection process failed to adequately redress the wrongs suffered by the grievor. The FA also questioned the real intentions behind the decision to amalgate two positions before the establishment change procedures were initiated; therefore, he did not support the decision by the chain of command. A new competition was held in order to staff the position this year, not to repeat the selection process for the years targeted by the grievance, and although the grievor took part in them, he was not selected for any of these positions. The FA was concerned by the fact that the selection process had been circumvented and that the grievor had been denied access to the results relating to his ranking and interview. He therefore followed up the Board's recommendations by ordering the Commander of the unit in question to disclose the results to the grievor along with any other information on the outcomes of the two selection processes. The FA asked the Comd Naval Reserve to review the process for allocating Class ''B'' Reserve positions in his units and the system enabling the chain of command and the career managers to track careers. The FA also asked him to brief the unit COs under his authority on the scope of the Access to Information Act and on the relevant Treasury Board directive.