# 2013-065 - Promotion


Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–10–17

The grievor was ranked number one on the merit list for promotion to Chief Petty Officer 1st Class (CPO1) when his occupation was amalgamated with another occupation. As a result of the amalgamation, the CPO1 Fair Share distribution assigned two additional positions to the grievor's new occupation. There were no promotions on the grievor's assigned Home Port Division (HPD) in either occupation during the year of the amalgamation. The grievor believed that he should have been promoted using one of these additional positions, claiming that at the annual Career Manager (CM) Briefing, the CM stated that promotions generated by the increase in positions would be deferred to the following year. The grievor felt that this negated his merit list standing and allowed the CM to “merit shop” for potential candidates the following year.

The Initial Authority denied the grievance, indicating that the grievor's occupation was already at the preferred manning level and that although the CPO1 Fair Share distribution indicated that the occupation would increase by two positions, there were already people of other trades in those positions and the increase would require an establishment change.

The policy concerning promotion is found in Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O) 11.02 and requires that a vacancy exist in order to promote a service member. The Committee confirmed with the CM that there was no vacancy in the grievor's occupation during the year that he was number one on the merit list The Committee also noted that, had a vacancy existed, any promotion issued after the amalgamation of the occupations would have required a new Merit Board leading to the creation of a new list. The Committee concluded that this situation would have been similar to that created when a promotion is required for a position that is not specific to either HPD East or West. In such a case, the Director General Naval Personnel CPO1 indicated to the Committee that the raw scores from the two merit lists are used. When the Committee compared the grievor's raw merit score against that of the number one candidate in the other amalgamated occupation, the Committee found that the grievor would not have maintained his number one position. Similarly, the Committee observed that in the following year, the grievor did not rank high enough on the new merit list to warrant a promotion (there was only one promotion in the grievor's assigned HPD this year).

The Committee determined that the grievor had been treated fairly and in accordance with the applicable policy and recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–06–05

The Final Authority agreed with the Committee that the grievor has been treated fairly and denied the grievance.

Page details

Date modified: