# 2016-146 - Promotion

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–12–28

The grievor was substantively promoted to Master Corporal (MCpl) shortly after transferring from the Naval Primary Reserve (PRes) to the Land Pres. She was promoted on the basis of having completed the necessary occupational qualification and the Primary Leadership Qualification (PLQ) Common course prior to the transfer. Approximately 16 months later, the grievor was reverted to Acting/lacking (A/L) MCpl and told it was because she had not completed the Land version of PLQ, the PLQ-L course. As a result, when the grievor transferred back to the Naval PRes a few months later, it was at the substantive rank of Corporal (Cpl). The grievor complained that her substantive promotion to MCpl was wrongly reverted to A/L MCpl and that this caused her to be transferred to the Naval PRES as a Cpl rather than as a MCpl.

The Initial Authority (IA) was unable to render a decision within the required timeframe. However, the IA grievance analyst completed a synopsis which indicated that the grievor was never substantively promoted to MCpl due to the Army policy requiring PLQ-L for promotion.

The Committee examined the applicable policies for PRES promotion found in the Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 49-5 - Career Policy – Non-Commissioned Member – Primary Reserve, the Assistant Deputy Minister Human Resources Military – Instruction 02/06 – Primary Leadership Qualification, and the Canadian Forces General (CANFORGEN) Message 101-08 – Common DP1/DP2 Training Requirements.

The Committee found that the grievor had been substantively promoted by the unit Commanding Officer (CO) and that the records indicated clearly that it was on the basis of the grievor's PLQ Common. The Committee then examined the reversion to A/L and found no evidence that the CO had authorized such an act. The Committee concluded that without the proper authority, the reversion action was considered null and void.

Finally, the Committee considered whether the original substantive promotion to MCpl should stand and found that the promotion was fully compliant with Canadian Armed Forces promotion policy. The sole issue was whether the CANFORGEN 101/08 policy regarding Land environment training was properly applied to the grievor's case. The Committee noted that the CANFORGEN is clear that members of the Land environment who require PLQ training must take the PLQ-L version of the training. However, the Committee found nothing in the CANFORGEN to suggest that the PLQ qualification already held before the grievor became a Land environment member could be considered invalid. The Committee observed that one completed PLQ should be enough to satisfy the promotion requirement.

Accordingly, the Committee found that the grievor's substantive promotion to MCpl was policy compliant and should be reinstated effective the original date. The Committee also found that the grievor's subsequent transfer back to the Naval PRES should be amended to reflect her MCpl rank.

The Committee recommended that redress be granted.

FA Decision Summary

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and accepted them as his own and agreed with the recommendation to uphold the grievance. The FA agreed that the grievor met all of the conditions for promotion to MCpl as prescribed in CFAO 49-5 as there is no CAF policy requiring a fully PLQ qualified member to undertake PLQ Land simply because they subsequently transfer to the Land environment. Accordingly, the FA directed that the grievor's substantive appointment to MCpl/MS be reinstated.

The FA also agreed that there was no reason to have excluded the PER the grievor received in the Army from the being seen in Naval Reserve career boards. The FA directed that a secretarial review be conducted to determine whether supplementary promotion boards were required.