# 2013-111 - Class B Reserve Service, Reserve Force

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–01–31

The grievor, a reserve Corporal, applied for three separate Class “B” Reserve Service job opportunities at the rank of Master Corporal. When she was not selected for any of these job openings, she submitted a grievance alleging unfair treatment.

No decision was made by an Initial Authority (IA) in this case since the grievor denied the IA's request to extend the established deadline.

The Committee asked the Canadian Armed Forces for copies of the three files relating to the Reserve employment opportunities in dispute along with explanations of the process for selecting the successful candidates.

The Committee noted that the grievor did not object to the advertising process or the evaluation tools that were used but claimed rather than she had not been selected because the process was biased against her.

The Committee began by reviewing the selection process for the first job opportunity and noted that the grievor had been eligible to apply since the job posting had indicated that Corporals would be considered if no eligible Master Corporals were chosen.

The Committee then reviewed the evaluation process and noted that the grievor had been ranked second. In accordance with the existing regulations, the position had been offered to the winning candidate, who had accepted. The Committee saw nothing that indicated there was bias or prejudice against the grievor or that the evaluation of her application had been unduly compromised.

The Committee therefore reviewed the evaluation of the second job opening and noted that the posting no longer indicated that Corporals would be considered. Since a Master Corporal had submitted an application and was offered the position, the Committee concluded that the grievor had suffered no prejudice.

Lastly, the Committee reviewed the evaluation of the third employment opportunity and noted that it had been cancelled. The Committee therefore concluded that the grievor had not been treated unfairly.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–12–18

The CDS does not agree with the Committee that the grievor was not aggrieved. Regarding the first competition, the CDS agreed that the grievor qualified second and that the selection process appeared to be legitimate. However, considering the context and given that the answers provided by the grievor's unit to the Committee seemed to it to be incomplete and inconsistent, the CDS concluded that it was probable that the selection process with respect to two of the three competitions for Class “B” positions had not been fair and equitable. The CDS allowed the grievance and sent the grievor's file to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation.