# 2014-005 - University Training Plan Non-Commissioned Members (UTPNCM)
F&R Date: 2014–02–18
The grievor, a non-commissioned member, sought career information from an Education Officer relative to her plan of becoming a Pharmacy Officer through a subsidized education plan. She was advised to obtain the necessary prerequisites and apply through the University Training Plan for Non-Commissioned Members (UTPNCM). Unfortunately for the grievor, when she was ready to apply and unlike previous years, the Pharmacy Officer occupation was not open through the UTPNCM competition. In the year in question, subsidized education for the Pharmacy Officer occupation was only available through the Military Pharmacy Training Plan (MPTP), a plan open to officers of the Regular Force who had completed three years university training. As the grievor was a non-commissioned member who had not completed the requisite university training, she did not meet the criteria to apply to the MPTP. Believing that limiting access to the Pharmacy Officer occupation through the MPTP was biased and unfair, the grievor submitted a grievance. The grievor argued that the Strategic Intake Plan (SIP) for the current MPTP could be reduced from one to zero to allow her application to the Pharmacy Officer occupation to proceed through the UTPNCM.
The issue before the Committee was to determine whether the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) decisions regarding the SIP to meet the requirements of the Pharmacy Officer occupation resulted in an injustice towards the grievor.
The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance, finding that during the Annual Military Occupation Review process the occupation advisors had assessed the occupation and set the intake and preferred entry plans according to policy. Based on CAF requirements, it was correctly determined that there was no requirement for intake in the Pharmacy Officer occupation through the UTPNCM for the year in question. To allow the grievor the opportunity to apply for Pharmacy Officer through the UTPNCM without a competitive advertised process, available to other non-commissioned members, would be biased, unfair and unreasonable.
The Committee found that the greivor's submissions were unsubstantiated. In the course of her enquiries, the grievor was neither misdirected nor misinformed. It was unfortunate that when the grievor was ready to apply to the competition, it was no longer open for her desired occupation; however, there was never any guarantee it would be. The Committee found that the selection of the MPTP over the UTPNCM was reasonable and within the CAF's fundamental management right. It was noted that the CAF have put in place a very stringent and equitable process where, year-by-year, they identify their production requirements and select what they consider to be the best entry plans to meet these requirements.
The Committee could not agree with the grievor's suggestion to reduce the SIP for the MPTP from one to zero in order to allow her access to the Pharmacy Officer occupation through the UTPNCM. While the Committee did not doubt the quality and strength of the grievor's candidature, short of a competition, it was not possible to determine if the grievor was the best candidate for the Pharmacy trade and it would be unfair to other non-commissioned members who could have potentially applied.
The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2014–06–05
The Final Authority agrees with the Committee's findings and recommendations that the grievance be denied.
- Date modified: