# 2016-189 - Class A Reserve Service, Release - Reserve, Reserve Force

Class A Reserve Service, Release - Reserve, Reserve Force

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–05–18

The grievor contended that it was unfair that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) failed to continue to employ him upon completion of a key appointment as a Regimental Sergeant Major (RSM) in the Primary Reserve (PRes). He also challenged the decision to release him from the CAF arguing there was no justification for his release. He argued that it was not his fault that there were no vacant positions in which he could be employed; and, that it is misguided to place greater importance on maintaining establishment positions over retaining an experienced Chief Warrant Officer (CWO).

The Initial Authority stated that there is no guarantee of continued employment following the completion of an RSM appointment, but that there were three options available to the grievor: commissioning from the ranks (CFR), being selected for a higher-level key appointment, or release. The grievor was not successful on the Canadian Forces Aptitude Test to be considered for CFR; and, he was not selected in the very competitive process for a higher level appointment. Therefore, release from the CAF was the last option available as there was no position in which to employ the grievor.

The Committee found that Reserve employment policies were very clear and the grievor could not have had a reasonable expectation of continued employment upon completion of his RSM appointment. The Committee also found that the grievor's chain of command did everything possible to assist him in obtaining employment following his RSM appointment by offering him the opportunity to CFR, as well as the opportunity to fill other positions within the division. Given that the grievor did not accept the other positions, and did not qualify for CFR, the Committee found that his release was justified and in accordance with the regulations. Consequently, the Committee recommended the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

The FA, the CDS, disagreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. While he agreed with the Committee's finding that the grievor was treated in accordance with the applicable policies; he stated that he felt compelled by the grievor's case and offered him a commission with a corresponding Class A employment opportunity, relying on the provisions of recent CANFORGEN 203/15 – 2016 Special Requirements Commissioning Plan, by which the requirement for a CFAT is now rescinded.

Page details

Date modified: