# 2012-146 Careers, Class B Reserve Service, Reserve Force, Termination Class B Reserve Service, Terms of Employment for...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–12–27

The grievor successfully applied for a full-time Class B Reserve Service (Cl B Svc) position at his rank of Warrant Officer (WO) at a Training Centre (TC). However, on arrival he was immediately reassigned to a different position that required him to work shiftwork and weekends, interfering with the grievor’s prior civilian commitments. The grievor refused a number of alternative positions, insisting that he be employed in the position and fulfilling the duties he was originally offered. Consequently, the grievor’s Cl B Svc was ceased on 30-days’ notice because the original WO position had been eliminated due to an operationally required reorganization.

The issues before the Board were whether the grievor should have been allowed to serve in the Cl B Svc position for which he was originally hired and whether his Cl B Svc was terminated in accordance with policy.

The grievor argued that his Cl B Svc could not be terminated for the reason given by the TC because the TC staff knew before his arrival that they had no intention of employing him in the original position. As redress, the grievor sought reinstatement on Cl B Svc in the WO position for which he had been hired.

The Initial Authority (IA), the TC Commanding Officer (CO), denied redress, explaining that, after the grievor accepted the WO position, there was an unforeseen change in operational requirements requiring the grievor’s reassignment. The IA observed that the chain of command attempted to accommodate the grievor, who declined all concessions offered because they would interfere with his other activities. The IA stated that the grievor’s refusal prompted the initiation of procedures to terminate the grievor’s Cl B Svc on 30 days’ notice.

The Board was concerned that the IA decision was taken without the benefit of a synopsis or any supporting documentation. Thus, there was no disclosure to the grievor. The Board found that the IA rendered what appeared to be an unsupported decision and failed to provide the grievor with basic procedural fairness.

The Board obtained from the TC a series of e-mails from the relevant time period as well as a copy of the reorganization directive that eliminated the original WO position. The TC also provided a newly drafted synopsis that addressed the relevant time.

The Board first considered what and when the unit knew about how the TC intended to employ the grievor. Timelines and discussions in the e-mails from the TC indicated that, prior to the grievor reporting for duty, the TC staff members were aware that he would not be employed in the original WO position. The Board noted that the grievor had given up another suitable Cl B period of service in order to accept the new employment with the TC. The Board found that the grievor should have been advised well before his start date that he could no longer be employed in the original WO position and that, had that occurred, he might have been able to retain his previous Cl B employment.

The Board then examined the cessation of the grievor’s Cl B Svc. The Board could find no indication that the grievor had ever advised the TC, in writing or verbally, prior to his accepting the position that he did not want to work evenings and weekends. That said, the Board noted that being hired for the original WO position would not preclude the TC from reassigning the grievor as required in order to meet new priorities. The Board found that the CO was justified in reassigning the grievor as priorities required and, therefore, also justified in ceasing his Cl B Svc if he could not meet the changing needs of the TC. The Board noted the attempts by the unit to find a compromise that would work for the grievor and found no evidence of negligence or malice, although the Board observed that the matter could have been handled better.

The Board recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–01–15

The FA found the grievor was aggrieved in that his Reserve service was not properly administered, however, the FA.agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be denied, as the grievor secured consistently Class “B” service since the end of his service at a training center. Furthermore, the grievor could not be paid for the remainder of his Class “B” service with that same unit for work that was not done. However, the FA did not agree with the Committee's finding that the training unit did not act with a malicious intent: the FA was of the view that the evidence on file suggested the contrary. The FA did not agree either with the Committee's finding that Reserve Force personnel may be employed at the discretion of the chain of command. The FA found that the grievor's former chain of command failed to get the grievor's consent to have him employed in a position, different from the one he accepted the Class “B”, as per CF Mil Pers Instruction 20/04 paragraphs 4.14 and 4.5.