# 2014-049 - Class B Reserve Service, Reserve Employment Process

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–08–19

The grievor applied for Class “B” Reserve Service employment opportunities. He objected to the fact that he was not selected for one of the employment opportunities and claimed that the process was tainted by a number of irregularities, one of which was opening the competition to ranks other than that of the positions.

The Committee had to determine whether the complainant had been treated fairly and in accordance with the selection process policies for Class “B” Reserve Service employment opportunities.

The Initial Authority concluded that the candidate selection process for the various positions complied with the staffing regulations for the Primary Reserve. In the view of the Initial Authority, the employment offers were aimed at hiring the best candidates based on service requirements.

The Committee noted at the outset that the positions in question had been established at the rank of Captain in accordance with the unit establishment. The Committee also noted that, pursuant to Land Force Command Order 33-07, the Commanding Officer did not have the authority to change the rank of the positions and, therefore, could not consider applications from Lieutenants, Master Warrant Officers or Chief Warrant Officers on the same basis as applications from Captains.

Moreover, according to Chief of Military Personnel Instruction 20/04 and the Personnel Policy – Employment of Reservists within Land Forces Command, a reservist meeting the rank requirements will normally fill a Class ”B“ Reserve Service position in the member's substantive rank. However, they state that if the Selection Committee is unsuccessful at finding a qualified candidate at the permanent rank of the position, it may consider choosing a member holding the rank immediately below. Moreover, in the case of a Captain's position, it is permitted to consider the application of a Chief Warrant Officer or Master Warrant Officer because they may receive an officer's commission at the rank of Captain

The Committee therefore concluded that the Selection Committee could not disregard a candidate at the substantive rank if the candidate met the position requirements, to favour a candidate of a lower rank, even if the Selection Committee regarded that candidate more favourably. Accordingly, the appointment of a lower ranking candidate could be considered only after exhausting the list of candidates at the substantive rank of Captain. Because all candidates who applied were interviewed, regardless of their performance evaluation, rank or home unit, the Committee found that the Selection Committee did not correctly follow the staffing process for the positions. The Committee therefore concluded that the grievor was aggrieved during the selection process for the Class “B” Reserve Service employment opportunities. However, in this case, the Committee considered that it would be unwise to repeat the selection process. Primarily because the grievor had not scored high enough among the applicants with the rank of Captain to have been offered one of the available positions.

With respect to the other irregularities raised by the grievor, the Committee concluded that the grievor was not aggrieved except with respect to the issue of the rank of one of the Selection Committee members. The Committee concluded that, in the interest of transparency, the chain of command should have ensured that all members of the Selection Committee held, at minimum, the rank of Captain. Accordingly, the Committee was of the opinion that the results assigned to the grievor by this member should not have been included in the mark the Selection Committee attributed to the grievor.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–03–25

The FA agrees with the Committee's conclusions. The FA does not agree with the Committee's recommendation to inform a military member, through the grievance process, that the words that he used in an email exchange with the grievor were inappropriate. The FA does agree with the Committee's recommendation that the HQ 2nd Cdn Div be informed of irregularities in the employee's process and the importance of thoroughly complying with the established process in order to be impartial, transparent and fair to all the candidates. The FA agrees with the Committee that the grievor was aggrieved, but that the results would have been the same since the candidate placed seventh and only six positions were available.