# 2016-114 - Selection Board

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–10–27

The grievor maintained that his file should have been presented to the Selection Board given that he had ranked well the previous year. He also maintained that the promotion forecast, which dictates the cut-off line for inclusion in the Selection Board Candidates List (SBCL), was unreasonably low, as evidenced by the fact that the actual number of promotions was more than double the forecast. Given his ranking in relation to the SBCL cut-off line, he believed a reasonable forecast would have enabled his file to be included on the SBCL. The grievor also contested the process by which his occupation selects the files deemed competitive for inclusion on the SBCL.

The Initial Authority (IA) rejected the grievance, having concluded that the promotion forecast was not unreasonable and that both the determination of the cut-off for inclusion on the SBCL and the criteria for the inclusion of competitive files were in accordance with current policies.

The Committee determined that, given the information available at the time the SBCL was established, the promotion forecast was not unreasonable and the cut-off for inclusion had been determined properly. However, the Committee noted that the grievor's file contained some impressive elements that made his file just as competitive as others that had been added to the SBCL, if not more so. Furthermore, the Committee found that one of the files included on the List did not even meet the criteria for inclusion identified by the occupation. The Committee therefore concluded that the career manager ought to have recognized the outstanding nature of the candidate's file and recommended that a Supplementary Board be convened to assess the grievor's file for promotion.

FA Decision Summary

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation although he did not have the same reasoning. The FA found that it was in response to D Inf's intent that the career manager had decided to only add to the mathematical SBCL calculation files with JCSP and a minimum of one year in a high range position. The FA described this as demonstrating undue influence by personnel external to DGMC and noted that this was not the first grievance in which he had observed such interference. He stated that this is contrary to policy and must cease. Furthermore, the discretion to add files exists only to avoid accidentally overlooking competitive files. When more files are added to the SBCL than were selected by the initial mathematical calculation, this is clearly unreasonable, and signifies that either the cut-off line was established too low or the inclusion criteria were incorrectly designed. The FA directed DGMC to conduct a supplementary merit board for the grievor and other files in the same situation, and he recommended that DGMC develop control measures to prevent external authorities from exerting undue influence on the SBCL process.