# 2013-119 - Career Progression, Promotion, Selection Board

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–05–06

The grievor alleged that he had been disadvantaged at the annual Selection Board (SB). He noted that his Theatre Personnel Evaluation Report (PER), covering a reporting period during which he was deployed in an Acting While So Employed (AWSE) position, was not completed in time for the appropriate SB. The grievor described how he had accepted several key and very demanding postings at the last minute, and how, on at least two occasions, he was required to maintain his previous responsibilities for several months in addition to assuming the duties of his new post.

Following a SB where the grievor made no progress, and prior to the submission of his grievance, the grievor's Commander requested that the Director General Military Careers direct that a Supplementary SB (SSB) be convened. Although a SSB was convened, the grievor maintained the same merit list standing. These events led to the submission of the grievance.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance, explaining that the SSB had accurately reviewed the grievor's promotion file.

The Committee first noted that the grievor had not followed a typical career path for his occupation as he had been called upon several times, at short notice, to fill key and sometimes dual positions for the CAF. The Committee also observed that the grievor's PERs consistently depicted his performance as mastered and his potential as outstanding, including his AWSE Theatre PER when deployed on operations in a newly created and high-profile position.

The Committee then reviewed the composition and results of the most recent SB, and the subsequent SSB. The Committee noted that out of the four SSB members, only one had not been involved in the previous SB. In fact, the Committee observed that two out of the four SSB members had assessed the grievor's performance and potential on four consecutive occasions while a third one had assessed the grievor on three consecutive occasions. Applying the apprehension of bias test articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Committee found that a reasonable person would have been very much concerned that three of the four members of the SSB may have been influenced by their pre-existing opinions regarding the relative merit of the grievor's file. Therefore, the Committee found that the results of the SSB could not be relied upon.

The Committee conducted a review of the grievor's file in comparison to that of his promoted peers and found that the grievor had been awarded the appropriate points for the objective factors. However, when the Committee reviewed each of the subjective factors in detail, it was determined that the grievor's file was not scored as high as other candidates in some areas where his file was equally strong or stronger.

The Committee therefore conservatively re-calculated the grievor's score, applying the same criteria used by the original SB and the SSB, and found that the grievor's score exceeded one of the promoted candidates and that he should be promoted.

The Committee therefore recommended that the grievance be upheld and the grievor promoted.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–02–25

The FA agreed with the Committee that the grievor had been aggrieved by the Selection Board process and that he merited a higher overall score, however the FA did not agree that the grievor's new ranking warranted promotion. Therefore, the FA was not prepared to grant the redress sought.