# 2012-114 Careers, Career Progression, Second Official Language Competency

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–11–30

The grievor submitted he was unfairly treated with respect to his standing on the 2010 merit list as a result of the implementation of the new second official language (SOL) scoring system. The grievor was of the opinion that the implementation of the new system three months prior to the sitting of the selection boards (SB) put him at a disadvantage because he was deployed when the policy was issued, he did not have access to policy changes and, upon his return, had no opportunity to update his SOL profile prior to the SB being held. The grievor acknowledged that it was his responsibility to update his profile prior to deploying as it would expire while he was away; however, he argued that pre-deployment training and his participation in year one of the two-year Joint Command and Staff Program (JCSP) Distant Learning (DL) course left him very little time to prepare for and arrange a second language test prior to his departure.

The grievor maintained that he chose to defer testing until his return from deployment after conferring with his career manager (CM) who advised him that he would receive points for attending the JCSP DL. As redress, the grievor requested that a special merit board be convened to re-evaluate his merit ranking based on the previous SOL scoring criteria; alternatively, if this was not possible, he asked to be assessed using his updated SOL profile.

The initial authority (IA) pointed out that with the creation of the Official Languages Program Transformation Model (OLPTM) in 2006, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) had made it clear that SOL competencies were to become a condition of employment for senior ranking Canadian Forces (CF) members such as the grievor. Although there were delays in implementing the model, the IA was of the opinion that the grievor had sufficient notice of the importance placed on seeking and maintaining valid SOL profiles. The IA commended the grievor on taking appropriate action to update his profile upon his return to Canada, but denied the grievance.

As pointed out by the IA, the Board agreed there was ample evidence of the CF's intent to make SOL competencies a condition of employment for the senior ranks as early as 2006 upon the creation of the OLPTM which, upon taking effect in 2007, provided specific goals to guide the CF in meeting its obligations under the Official Languages Act. The Board was satisfied that the grievor had notice of the importance placed on SOL competency by the CF. In addition, the Board pointed out that as early as July 2004, the CF identified the importance for its members to keep a current SOL profile and provided a general testing guideline.

The Board found that the grievor had notice of the importance placed on SOL competency by the CF and there was an onus on him to remain up to date. While the Board agreed that the grievor did not receive any points for his expired profile, the Board was of the view that he was not disadvantaged by the coming into effect of the new SOL scoring policy. In the Board's opinion, the grievor did not receive any points simply because he decided to take the risk of not updating his profile on the basis of information provided by his CM. On this issue, the Board acknowledged that the information later proved to be wrong; however, the Board's position was that this error, while unfortunate, should not have any bearing on the outcome of the grievance for the following two reasons: 1) the erroneous advice concerning the JCSP DL award of points did not negate the grievor's requirement to keep his SOL profile current and, 2) CANFORGEN 153/08 - Clarification of Scoring CF Selection Boards Promotion Year 09, dated 12 August 2008, a document readily available to the grievor, indicated that points for the JCSP, whether DL or not, are only awarded when the course is completed.

In summary, regardless of the reasons and explanation for relying on the CM's information, the grievor failed to update his SOL profile. The Board found this was the reason why he did not get promoted in 2011. In the Board's view, the grievor was not prejudiced by the manner the SOL scoring system was implemented.

The Board recommended to the CDS that he deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–05–21

The FA agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.