# 2012-144 - Class B Reserve Service, Reserve Force

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–01–25

The grievor, believing that she had been denied a full-time Class “B” Reserve Service (Cl B Svc) position because of her pregnancy, sought a review of the employment selection process.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Formation Commander, denied the grievance on the basis that the grievor had been given equal opportunity and consideration. The IA concluded that, although the grievor and one other candidate also met the minimum requirements of the position, the priority for selection was given to the member with less year of service in the occupation to enhance career management.

In examining the selection criteria, the Board observed that the incumbent lacked the required Qualification Level (QL) 3 and the appropriate rank at the time the process was initiated, at the application cut-off date and on his selection date. The Board found that it was unfair to the grievor to consider and select the incumbent given he did not meet the prerequisites as of the application cut-off date.

The Board observed that there was little actual difference between the grievor and the incumbent in terms of trade experience and noted that the grievor's terms of service expire in 2051 and the incumbent's in 2019. Although the Board agreed with the IA that it may be reasonable, under certain circumstances, to select and develop a junior member for the needs of the service, in this case, the Board found that the grievor appeared to offer more career development potential than the incumbent.

The grievor alleged that her non-selection was due to her pregnancy and was discriminatory. The Board found no evidence that such was the case. However, in attempting to investigate this matter, it became evident that the formation had failed to maintain records of the selection process. There were no interviews or tests, nor was there a written explanation as to why the incumbent was selected over the other two applicants. The Board found that the selection process lacked transparency and fairness and observed that empowering Career Managers to fill vacant positions without running an open selection process requires guidelines and appropriate record keeping to guard against potential abuses.

The Board concluded that the selection process was flawed but could not determine whether the grievor would have been selected had it been otherwise. Therefore, the Board recommended that the final authority partially uphold the grievance by directing the Formation to conduct a new selection process for the three original applicants and to offer the position to the winner for a period of three years. The Board also recommended that the Formation be directed to establish appropriate guidelines for the administration of career-managed employment selections.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–08–27

The Final Authority (FA) partially agreed with the Committee's recommendation, and fully granted redress. The FA did not agree with the Committee's finding that the selection process was flawed. The FA found that the administrative policies regarding the employment of reservists were followed, stating that there was nothing in these policies to suggest that candidates must be qualified prior to the application deadline, versus prior to the start of the period of Reserve service. The FA agreed that there was no specific set of criteria or interview process, and the employment opportunity lacked details, but the grievor was informed that the position was designed for an experienced junior clerk. Although the FA agreed that the grievor was clearly far more experienced for the position, he concluded that as per one of the policy, the most experienced person would not necessarily be chosen. In any event, the FA endorsed the Committee's concern that the selection processes should be more transparent and that information from all selection processes should be retained and available and agreed with the Committee's recommendation that appropriate guidelines for the administration of career-managed employment selection be established.

Following further investigation, the FA discovered from a witness present at the meeting to debrief the grievor regarding her non-selection for the clerk position, that her pregnancy and single motherhood may have been mentioned. The FA was concerned that given this statement and the lack of clarity associated with the staffing process, there was a possibility that the grievor may have been discriminated against contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, he directed that the grievor be placed on a priority status and be selected for the next suitable Class ''B'' Reserve service position for which she would meet the requisite qualifications and for a period equal in length. The FA also asked that grounds of discrimination under the Charter are clearly understood by the chain of command and staff involved in the staffing process.